From owner-cvs-all Wed Feb 28 12:31:46 2001 Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from meow.osd.bsdi.com (meow.osd.bsdi.com [204.216.28.88]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0119237B744; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 12:31:33 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jhb@FreeBSD.org) Received: from laptop.baldwin.cx (john@jhb-laptop.osd.bsdi.com [204.216.28.241]) by meow.osd.bsdi.com (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f1SKRcl23402; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 12:27:38 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jhb@FreeBSD.org) Message-ID: X-Mailer: XFMail 1.4.0 on FreeBSD X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <200102281651.f1SGp8d41759@harmony.village.org> Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 12:31:11 -0800 (PST) From: John Baldwin To: Warner Losh Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/gnu/usr.bin/binutils/ar Makefile src/gnu/usr Cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, Wesley Morgan , obrien@FreeBSD.org, Will Andrews , Dag-Erling Smorgrav Sender: owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On 28-Feb-01 Warner Losh wrote: > In message Dag-Erling Smorgrav writes: >: Will Andrews 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. > > So long as it is not forced unconditionally to be static. > > We use make in our embedded devices for a couple of things and having > it dynamic is a good thing for its space savings. And you don't tweak the build at all for your embedded system? :) > a) happens very rarely (once since 3.0 and only in -current) and is > easy to work around (copy a good libc.so.X to /usr/lib). *shrug* If it were a current only thing that would be fine for me, as that is where it would be useful. Then again, for a stable -> current upgrade it might be needed in stable as well one could argue. Also, the libc sources don't have to be screwed up for libc to be trashed. Kernel panics at inopportune times due to other bugs can result in pain. > b) I've not seen the numbers for this. If it is only 1% faster, it > doesn't make sense, even though it sounds good on paper. I would only argue for a static make on teh basis of recoverability from bad juju, not for speed. > Warner -- John Baldwin -- http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ PGP Key: http://www.baldwin.cx/~john/pgpkey.asc "Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message