From owner-svn-src-head@freebsd.org Sun Oct 27 16:59:34 2019 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-head@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D544F17EA17; Sun, 27 Oct 2019 16:59:34 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from danfe@freebsd.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [96.47.72.132]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "freefall.freebsd.org", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 471PGG5KX8z3Q6W; Sun, 27 Oct 2019 16:59:34 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from danfe@freebsd.org) Received: by freefall.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 1033) id A987114C8B; Sun, 27 Oct 2019 16:59:34 +0000 (UTC) Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2019 16:59:34 +0000 From: Alexey Dokuchaev To: Dimitry Andric Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org, Enji Cooper Subject: Re: svn commit: r353937 - in head/share: man/man5 mk Message-ID: <20191027165934.GA54960@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> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <67F6BDD3-B633-4C85-AE85-9B075FF0E49E@FreeBSD.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.11.4 (2019-03-13) X-BeenThere: svn-src-head@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: SVN commit messages for the src tree for head/-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2019 16:59:34 -0000 On Sat, Oct 26, 2019 at 04:34:14PM +0200, Dimitry Andric wrote: > > On 24 Oct 2019, at 14:49, Alexey Dokuchaev 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