From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Apr 24 07:14:12 1995 Return-Path: hackers-owner Received: (from majordom@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id HAA05652 for hackers-outgoing; Mon, 24 Apr 1995 07:14:12 -0700 Received: from trout.sri.MT.net (trout.sri.MT.net [204.182.243.12]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) with ESMTP id HAA05638 for ; Mon, 24 Apr 1995 07:14:07 -0700 Received: (from nate@localhost) by trout.sri.MT.net (8.6.11/8.6.11) id IAA04025; Mon, 24 Apr 1995 08:18:08 -0600 Date: Mon, 24 Apr 1995 08:18:08 -0600 From: Nate Williams Message-Id: <199504241418.IAA04025@trout.sri.MT.net> To: roberto@blaise.ibp.fr (Ollivier Robert) Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: benchmark hell.. In-Reply-To: <199504241010.MAA29906@blaise.ibp.fr> References: <199504232155.XAA02620@jette.heep.sax.de> <199504241010.MAA29906@blaise.ibp.fr> Sender: hackers-owner@FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > > To the contrary, *make*ing the Linux shlib's is a pain in the butt, > > while it's a very easy process to create a SunOS-like shlib. > > That will change with the introduction of the ELF format for binaries. > They will have the same ease of use and it seems not that slower either from > the report I got from my Linux's friends. Actually, folks I have talked to have given me the exact opposite report. And some people on the newsgroups have complained about the switch to ELF binaries since they are significantly slower than the original shlib implementation. I think our shlib implementatio is still probably slower than the ELF shlib stuff, but I suspect it's not much anymore. Nate