Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 11:35:03 -0800 (PST) From: Matt Dillon <dillon@earth.backplane.com> To: Andrea Campi <andrea@webcom.it> Cc: Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@FreeBSD.ORG>, FreeBSD Current <current@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: make(1) benchmarks [WAS: Re: cvs commit: src/gnu/usr.bin/binutils/ar Makefile src/gnu/usr.bin/binutils/as Makefile.inc0 ...] Message-ID: <200103061935.f26JZ3p57441@earth.backplane.com> References: <xzpn1b6py8b.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no> <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> <xzpn1b6py8b.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no> <200102281651.f1SGp8d41759@harmony.village.org> <20010228123542.N767@ohm.physics.purdue.edu> <3AA52E6F.F660E94B@FreeBSD.org> <20010306194444.A2520@webcom.it>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
:> Any updates? My quick test involving running pkg_version on a system with 92
:> installed ports, which is very make-intensive operation if ports have origin
:> recorded, as pkg_version(1) runs `make -V' for each port, shown that
:> statically-compiled make is about 15% faster than dynamically-compiled. Sound like a
:> reasonable speed gain for 100k binary size increase. What do people think?
:
:IFF it's only 100k difference, methink it's a no brainer. A static make is a
:good thing, if it's so good performancewise that I say go for it. pkg_version
:is quite intensive, that's for sure!
:
:Bye,
: Andrea
'make' is one of those programs that fork/exec's lots of copies of
itself, even when used without -j parallelization. Try doing a
'make' in virtually any ports directory, ^Z it, then do a ps and
you will see what I mean.
Static binaries will not only start up much more quickly then dynamic
binaries, they actually eat *less* memory if you are running a whole
bunch of them independantly (independantly exec'd). Make fits this
description to a T. Normally I would argue against making things
static, I definitely do *NOT* agree with the 'system recovery' reasoning
for making 'make' static. But I do agree that static is much better
with regard to all the fork/exec'ing make does. I think making
'make' static is a very good idea.
-Matt
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200103061935.f26JZ3p57441>