From owner-freebsd-current Tue Mar 6 11:37:44 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from earth.backplane.com (earth-nat-cw.backplane.com [208.161.114.67]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A472137B718; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 11:37:40 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dillon@earth.backplane.com) Received: (from dillon@localhost) by earth.backplane.com (8.11.2/8.9.3) id f26JZ3p57441; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 11:35:03 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dillon) Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 11:35:03 -0800 (PST) From: Matt Dillon Message-Id: <200103061935.f26JZ3p57441@earth.backplane.com> To: Andrea Campi Cc: Maxim Sobolev , FreeBSD Current Subject: Re: make(1) benchmarks [WAS: Re: cvs commit: src/gnu/usr.bin/binutils/ar Makefile src/gnu/usr.bin/binutils/as Makefile.inc0 ...] References: <200102271125.f1RBPig49632@freefall.freebsd.org> <20010227150929.B72398@dragon.nuxi.com> <20010228102308.K767@ohm.physics.purdue.edu> <200102281651.f1SGp8d41759@harmony.village.org> <20010228123542.N767@ohm.physics.purdue.edu> <3AA52E6F.F660E94B@FreeBSD.org> <20010306194444.A2520@webcom.it> Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG :> 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