Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 12:30:57 -0800 (PST) From: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> To: Will Andrews <will@physics.purdue.edu> Cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, Wesley Morgan <morganw@chemikals.org>, obrien@FreeBSD.org, Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@ofug.org> Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/gnu/usr.bin/binutils/ar Makefile src/gnu/usr Message-ID: <XFMail.010228123057.jhb@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20010228102308.K767@ohm.physics.purdue.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 28-Feb-01 Will Andrews wrote: > On Wed, Feb 28, 2001 at 03:46:06PM +0100, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote: >> Yes! Brilliant! Thank you! And would you please consider applying the >> same treatment to make(1)? >> >> (actually, wouldn't a statically-linked make perform better than a >> dynamically-linked one, since it forks and execs so much?) > > Why make make(1) statically linked? I'll have to run some tests on your > thought about statically linked make being faster. Uh, for the same reason as, cc, ld, etc. are? So that if you hose your system (like libc gets trashed, which can happen.. having the kernel panic during installworld at just the wrong time can be bad juju) you can still bootstrap yourself back to a working system. I guess technically one could figure out all teh command lines for cc to rebuild a library if needed, but that would really suck. Having make available to do this would be a large timesaver. > -- > wca -- John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> -- http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ PGP Key: http://www.baldwin.cx/~john/pgpkey.asc "Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?XFMail.010228123057.jhb>