Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 09:22:27 -0600 From: "Jacques A. Vidrine" <nectar@FreeBSD.org> To: David Leimbach <leimy2k@mac.com> Cc: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> Subject: Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh Message-ID: <20031125152227.GC48007@madman.celabo.org> In-Reply-To: <45D3EC00-1EEE-11D8-B368-000A95AFBEB4@mac.com> References: <20031125012208.GD46761@dan.emsphone.com> <200311251214.23290.doconnor@gsoft.com.au> <16322.46449.554372.358751@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> <20031124.190904.127666948.imp@bsdimp.com> <45D3EC00-1EEE-11D8-B368-000A95AFBEB4@mac.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Nov 24, 2003 at 08:22:52PM -0600, David Leimbach wrote: > Yep :). > > I feel like saying "set the default to static and make the dynamic bins > the option" so > the people who can't be bothered to compile their own system even > though everyone > I know does this for tuning purposes anyway can stop whining. > > But I won't say that. I feel we need to pressure to improve the performance of dynamic linking. This is not really different from anything else we do in -CURRENT: some things we have to throw out there before it is perfect, in order to reach critical mass. Cheers, -- Jacques Vidrine NTT/Verio SME FreeBSD UNIX Heimdal nectar@celabo.org jvidrine@verio.net nectar@freebsd.org nectar@kth.se
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20031125152227.GC48007>