Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 14:42:22 -0500 (EST) From: Daniel Eischen <eischen@pcnet1.pcnet.com> To: Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@xcllnt.net> Cc: kse@elischer.org Subject: Re: Not providing static libraries (libkse/libpthread) Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10303261441100.9412-100000@pcnet1.pcnet.com> In-Reply-To: <20030326193524.GA11320@dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 26 Mar 2003, Marcel Moolenaar wrote: > On Wed, Mar 26, 2003 at 01:51:39PM -0500, Daniel Eischen wrote: > > Is there a good reason for providing static libraries for > > libpthread/libkse? I'd like to not support them to get > > rid of some hacks to make sure certain symbols are present > > in the static library case. > > I the maintenance cost is low and the hacks are not in the way > of progress I think we should keep the static libraries. I think > we're throwing something away too carelessly otherwise. > > For example, the access sequences generated by compilers for > variables that have the __thread attribute do really suck for > when code is to be generated for dynamic linking. The access > sequences in the static case are superior. The performance > gain is significant if one can build a complete multi-threaded > application. Solaris and IRIX don't seem to provide static thread libraries. Does anyone know if Linux does? -- Dan Eischen
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.GSO.4.10.10303261441100.9412-100000>