Date: Tue, 25 Apr 95 18:53:35 MDT From: terry@cs.weber.edu (Terry Lambert) To: nate@trout.sri.MT.net (Nate Williams) Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Shlib complaints ( was Re: benchmark hell..) Message-ID: <9504260053.AA03167@cs.weber.edu> In-Reply-To: <199504252149.PAA13343@trout.sri.MT.net> from "Nate Williams" at Apr 25, 95 03:49:33 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > Yes, I think they would be about 10% slower (there is some > > question as to whether the "10%" number was arrive at > > legitimately, or whether the actual number is smaller, and > > the "10%" is an inflated value because the benchmarks didn't > > take into account the average time a program would be running > > (making the dynamic link overhead a significant fraction of > > the resulting benchmark run time -- say 10%). > > Whoa. Did you read what I read? My question was (in more obvious wording) > > "Would linking a program static using a static library made up of PIC > compiled objects cause run-time penalties" > > There are no run-time linking issues involved whatsoever, since we are > linking the program statically. Basically, my question boils down to > the differences between PIC objects and non-PIC objects. The only numbers I've seen assume a penalty because of dynamic fixup and another runtime penalty. The total of the two is (supposedly) 10%. Like I said, I don't know the relative penalty if statically linked PIC'ed code. I *suspect* that there will be some penalty, but I couln't place a bet as the what it would be except to say 0 < x < 10%. Terry Lambert terry@cs.weber.edu --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?9504260053.AA03167>