Date: Sun, 7 May 2000 14:43:33 -0700 (PDT) From: John Polstra <jdp@polstra.com> To: adsharma@sharmas.dhs.org Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Lazy binding Message-ID: <200005072143.OAA61439@vashon.polstra.com> In-Reply-To: <20000505233142.A27312@sharmas.dhs.org> References: <20000505233142.A27312@sharmas.dhs.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In article <20000505233142.A27312@sharmas.dhs.org>, Arun Sharma <adsharma@sharmas.dhs.org> wrote: > Is there a strong reason why FreeBSD rtld uses lazy binding by default ? 1. Faster start-up times for programs. 2. Better interversion library compatibility. It doesn't matter if a function is missing from a library, as long as the program never calls it at runtime. 3. It's what everybody else has always done by default. I.e., it's what users expect. > In a multithreaded environment, this could make things pretty complex. > What if a thread holds locks and fails at runtime due to a missing > symbol ? *shrug* The same thing that happens if a thread holds locks and fails for any other reason. > Also, is there a significant performance benefit to doing lazy binding ? Start-up time is faster. Overall runtime might be faster or slower, depending on the ratio of called functions to total functions. John -- John Polstra jdp@polstra.com John D. Polstra & Co., Inc. Seattle, Washington USA "Disappointment is a good sign of basic intelligence." -- Chögyam Trungpa To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200005072143.OAA61439>