Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 09:52:54 +1100 (EST) From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> To: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Unfortunate dynamic linking for everything Message-ID: <20031119094130.G4686@gamplex.bde.org> In-Reply-To: <20031118.092100.108186967.imp@bsdimp.com> References: <200311181307.hAID7uHa032514@dyson.jdyson.com> <20031118.092100.108186967.imp@bsdimp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 18 Nov 2003, M. Warner Losh wrote: > In message: <200311181307.hAID7uHa032514@dyson.jdyson.com> > dyson@iquest.net writes: > : It really doesn't make sense to arbitrarily cut-off a > : discussion especially when a decision might be incorrect. > > I'd say that good technical discussion about why this is wrong would > be good. However, emotional ones should be left behind. Except for > John's message, most of the earlier messages have been more emotional > than technical. I used to use all dynamic linkage, but switched to all static linkage (except for ports) when I understood John's points many year ago. It shouldn't be necessary to repeat the argmuments. > John, do you have any good set of benchmarks that people can run to > illustrate your point? Almost any benchmark that does lots of forks or execs, or uses libraries a lot will do. IIRC, 5-10% of my speedups for makeworld was from building tools static. Makeworld is not such a good benchmark for this as it used to be since it always builds tools static so the non-staticness of standard binaries doesn't matter so much. Perhaps it still matters for /bin/sh. Bruce
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20031119094130.G4686>