Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 00:39:15 -0800 (PST) From: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> To: Alfred Perlstein <bright@mu.org> Cc: Kris Kennaway <kris@FreeBSD.ORG>, Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org>, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk>, mitko@rila.bg, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Performance issue Message-ID: <200112140839.fBE8dF222658@apollo.backplane.com> References: <72360.1007898170@critter.freebsd.dk> <20011209232328.31DC43810@overcee.netplex.com.au> <20011213201715.C84382@citusc17.usc.edu> <20011214022651.I79896@elvis.mu.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
:That's not the point, you're proposing a static configuration
:which i honestly don't like. What makes more sense is to
:teach the dynamic linker to look for archetecture specific
:subdirectories in order to dynamically link in a shared object
:more suited to the running CPU, not the CPU it was compiled on.
:
:--
:-Alfred Perlstein [alfred@freebsd.org]
What Alfred said. We could have a base version that the linker
uses (and has always used... backwards compatible), and special
versions that are cpu-specific that the linker uses instead of
it sees them and they match the current cpu. It would work
quite nicely and it wouldn't require N different copies of
libc.
-Matt
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?200112140839.fBE8dF222658>