Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 11:54:58 -0700 (MST) From: Nate Williams <nate@yogotech.com> To: Mike Smith <msmith@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: arch@FreeBSD.ORG, dillon@earth.backplane.com Subject: Re: The shared /bin and /sbin bikeshed Message-ID: <200011111854.LAA04008@nomad.yogotech.com> In-Reply-To: <200011110315.eAB3Fp909237@mass.osd.bsdi.com> References: <200011110257.eAB2vj034258@vashon.polstra.com> <200011110315.eAB3Fp909237@mass.osd.bsdi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > But to keep things in perspective, saving RAM isn't really the main
> > advantage of shared libraries. Their value lies in other areas. They
> > save a lot of disk space; they allow bugs to be fixed in many programs
> > at once via the installation of a single repaired library; and they
> > provide the flexibility of run-time modules ("plug-ins"), which are
> > used by more and more software packages these days.
>
> It would be interesting to know whether the speed overhead (if any) for
> PIC code is offset by the improved cache behaviour as well.
Benchmarks done early on tend to say that using PIC code is 10-15%
slower than not. For awhile, GCC's internal compiler libraries were
compiled shared, but the speedups from compiling them static were
significant enough to show static linking is *significantly* faster than
shared linking, even if you remove the startup issues.
My own benchmarks show (pre-ELF) this as well.
Nate
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200011111854.LAA04008>