From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Nov 18 14:53:17 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1449C16A4CE for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 14:53:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailman.zeta.org.au (mailman.zeta.org.au [203.26.10.16]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A545343FDF for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 14:53:15 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from bde@zeta.org.au) Received: from gamplex.bde.org (katana.zip.com.au [61.8.7.246]) by mailman.zeta.org.au (8.9.3p2/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA14549; Wed, 19 Nov 2003 09:52:55 +1100 Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 09:52:54 +1100 (EST) From: Bruce Evans X-X-Sender: bde@gamplex.bde.org To: "M. Warner Losh" In-Reply-To: <20031118.092100.108186967.imp@bsdimp.com> Message-ID: <20031119094130.G4686@gamplex.bde.org> References: <200311181307.hAID7uHa032514@dyson.jdyson.com> <20031118.092100.108186967.imp@bsdimp.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII cc: dyson@iquest.net cc: current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Unfortunate dynamic linking for everything X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 22:53:17 -0000 On Tue, 18 Nov 2003, M. Warner Losh wrote: > In message: <200311181307.hAID7uHa032514@dyson.jdyson.com> > dyson@iquest.net writes: > : It really doesn't make sense to arbitrarily cut-off a > : discussion especially when a decision might be incorrect. > > I'd say that good technical discussion about why this is wrong would > be good. However, emotional ones should be left behind. Except for > John's message, most of the earlier messages have been more emotional > than technical. I used to use all dynamic linkage, but switched to all static linkage (except for ports) when I understood John's points many year ago. It shouldn't be necessary to repeat the argmuments. > John, do you have any good set of benchmarks that people can run to > illustrate your point? Almost any benchmark that does lots of forks or execs, or uses libraries a lot will do. IIRC, 5-10% of my speedups for makeworld was from building tools static. Makeworld is not such a good benchmark for this as it used to be since it always builds tools static so the non-staticness of standard binaries doesn't matter so much. Perhaps it still matters for /bin/sh. Bruce