Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2019 16:59:34 +0000 From: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@freebsd.org> To: Dimitry Andric <dim@freebsd.org> Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org, Enji Cooper <yaneurabeya@gmail.com> Subject: Re: svn commit: r353937 - in head/share: man/man5 mk Message-ID: <20191027165934.GA54960@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <67F6BDD3-B633-4C85-AE85-9B075FF0E49E@FreeBSD.org> References: <201910231702.x9NH2jQv045130@repo.freebsd.org> <2B855247-5097-442D-8D4A-77D68D2F6186@gmail.com> <20191024124910.GA93913@FreeBSD.org> <67F6BDD3-B633-4C85-AE85-9B075FF0E49E@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Oct 26, 2019 at 04:34:14PM +0200, Dimitry Andric wrote: > > On 24 Oct 2019, at 14:49, Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org> wrote: > > What are the benefits of the new order? > > The advantages and disadvantages of dynamic linking are a contentious > and almost religious issue, so I hope you don't mind that I will not go > into this. OK. :-) > > What about those of us who cannot use BEs, VMs, and other "cloudy" > > tech because, well, they might not work as well and reliably as one > > might think? > > There are many possibilities, such as making backups, using > WITHOUT_SHARED_TOOLCHAIN (and hoping that you can compile/link your way > out of a botched installation), or even using NO_SHARED. WITHOUT_SHARED_TOOLCHAIN sounds good, I hope it won't go away one day. > > Very good point. [about regressed performance] > > But if you take this point to its logical conclusion, then you should > link everything statically, and never use dynamic linking at all. :) Toolchain is special: many people prefer (or have to) build their ports and stuff; even those who prefer binary packages may need to test their ports in a tinderbox or p*re. In other words, I don't mind Firefox being dynalinked because I launch it once a month, contrary to the compiler. > I only tested -j24 on a 32-core system, but I could probably repeat the > experiment with lower and higher -j values: [...] > > So ~2.3% difference in real time, which is not too bad I think. Well, I'd say it's acceptable. :-/ > There are probably opportunities to improve the performance of the > dynamic linker, which would be beneficial to every program in the > system. Now that's a good point; I look forward to it! Thanks for replying, ./danfe
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20191027165934.GA54960>