Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 14:26:01 -0800 (PST) From: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> To: Warner Losh <imp@harmony.village.org> Cc: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@ofug.org>, Will Andrews <will@physics.purdue.edu>, 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 Message-ID: <XFMail.010228142601.jhb@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <200102282053.f1SKrpd43256@harmony.village.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 28-Feb-01 Warner Losh wrote: > In message <XFMail.010228123111.jhb@FreeBSD.org> John Baldwin writes: >: >: On 28-Feb-01 Warner Losh wrote: >: > In message <xzpn1b6py8b.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no> Dag-Erling Smorgrav writes: >: >: 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. >: > >: > 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? :) > > We do, but my point is that it increases the number of tweaks that I > have to do to the system if we start sprinkling these things all > through the tree. I'm worried about this being the cammel's nose and > the rest of the camel is going to follow. Fair enough. Probably a single knob 'STATIC_BUILDTOOLS' or some such that would make as, gcc, ld, make, etc. all be static that would default to on in -current might be helpful then? >: *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. > > Yes. And if it was a current only thing, then it would do the right > thing in upgrades... make builds a new make to be used for the rest > fo the build. Fair enough. >: > 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. > > OK. Of course when my libc was borked (and it was borked at least a > dozen times), cc1 and as were what was core dumping, not make. Depends on which part of libc is b0rked. :) > Warner -- John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> -- 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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?XFMail.010228142601.jhb>