From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Nov 26 04:38:56 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 548F016A4D1 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 04:38:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from paladin.fortunaty.net (fortunaty.net [217.160.129.175]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 30E9F43FEC for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 04:38:52 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from ah@paladin.fortunaty.net) Received: (qmail 4765 invoked by uid 501); 26 Nov 2003 12:38:50 -0000 Date: 26 Nov 2003 12:38:50 -0000 Message-ID: <20031126123850.4764.qmail@paladin.fortunaty.net> User-Agent: Emai/0.0.1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Disposition: inline References: <200311251507.55403.doconnor@gsoft.com.au>,<20031126025505.GB56876@dragon.nuxi.com> In-Reply-To: <20031126025505.GB56876@dragon.nuxi.com> From: andy-freebsd@splashground.de To: Subject: Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:38:56 -0000 obrien wrote @ Tue, 25 Nov 2003 18:55:05 -0800: > On Tue, Nov 25, 2003 at 03:07:55PM +1030, Daniel O'Connor wrote: > > What about the newer version of gcc? That is considerably slower than > > previous versions, but I don't see people screaming to have it removed. > > Uh... you must not know what you are talking about. GCC *COMPILES* > slower as it does a better job of optimizing (which adds time to the > compiling time). The produced optimzied binaries have quicker > *RUN-TIME*s. For C++ maybe, for C compile times (tripled?) stood in no relation to the run-time "improvements" (minor to negative), but GCC ppl are constantly improving (3.3 and on) and 2.9x was a dead horse. I see only very minor relation to the static/dynamic discussion. I don't know what the reason is for going dynamic by default _now_, but i am sure it got nothing to do with the unbelievable points presented till now like space savings or NSS. Stuff gets default when it's ready, and that would in this case mean after performance of dynamic binaries has improved and those ppl that want to introduce it present a solution, where everything has been thought of, and discussions like /bin/sh or /sbin/sh have already been had and solved. Introduce dynamic option now. Improve dynamic linking and make a good solution for a rescue. Then and only then make it the default. Everything else leads to threads like these, because it doesn't make sense to ppl. aha