Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 10:23:08 -0500 From: Will Andrews <will@physics.purdue.edu> To: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@ofug.org> Cc: obrien@FreeBSD.org, Wesley Morgan <morganw@chemikals.org>, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/gnu/usr.bin/binutils/ar Makefile src/gnu/usr.bin/binutils/as Makefile.inc0 src/gnu/usr.bin/binutils/ld Makefile src/gnu/usr.bin/binutils/ranlib Makefile Message-ID: <20010228102308.K767@ohm.physics.purdue.edu> In-Reply-To: <xzpg0gyyifl.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no>; from des@ofug.org on Wed, Feb 28, 2001 at 03:46:06PM %2B0100 References: <200102271125.f1RBPig49632@freefall.freebsd.org> <Pine.BSF.4.33.0102271746280.26953-100000@volatile.chemikals.org> <20010227150929.B72398@dragon.nuxi.com> <xzpg0gyyifl.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--9PByzOP77wFNgJ0y Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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)? >=20 > (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. --=20 wca --9PByzOP77wFNgJ0y Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.3 (FreeBSD) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE6nRfcF47idPgWcsURAnCfAJ9HqaBeymMbnDu+5dUHmnzUQlBYhQCgid21 lIa9SbxoKpnBXVMSmjlD6sk= =ZO2m -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --9PByzOP77wFNgJ0y-- 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?20010228102308.K767>