Date: 28 Feb 2001 17:29:40 +0100 From: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@ofug.org> To: Will Andrews <will@physics.purdue.edu> 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: <xzpn1b6py8b.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no> In-Reply-To: Will Andrews's message of "Wed, 28 Feb 2001 10:23:08 -0500" 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> <20010228102308.K767@ohm.physics.purdue.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Will Andrews <will@physics.purdue.edu> writes: > Why make make(1) statically linked? Because a) you need it to recover from e.g. libc fuckups and b) it forks and execs a *lot*, and according to Bruce (I haven't verified this myself) programs that do that (e.g. shells) perform better and consume less system resources if they're statically linked. DES -- Dag-Erling Smorgrav - des@ofug.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?xzpn1b6py8b.fsf>