Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 19:44:45 +0100 From: Andrea Campi <andrea@webcom.it> To: Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@FreeBSD.org> Cc: FreeBSD Current <current@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: make(1) benchmarks [WAS: Re: cvs commit: src/gnu/usr.bin/binutils/ar Makefile src/gnu/usr.bin/binutils/as Makefile.inc0 ...] Message-ID: <20010306194444.A2520@webcom.it> In-Reply-To: <3AA52E6F.F660E94B@FreeBSD.org>; from sobomax@FreeBSD.org on Tue, Mar 06, 2001 at 08:37:35PM %2B0200 References: <xzpn1b6py8b.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no> <200102271125.f1RBPig49632@freefall.freebsd.org> <Pine.BSF.4.33.0102271746280.26953-100000@volatile.chemikals.org> <20010227150929.B72398@dragon.nuxi.com> <xzpg0gyyifl.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no> <20010228102308.K767@ohm.physics.purdue.edu> <xzpn1b6py8b.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no> <200102281651.f1SGp8d41759@harmony.village.org> <20010228123542.N767@ohm.physics.purdue.edu> <3AA52E6F.F660E94B@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>
> Any updates? My quick test involving running pkg_version on a system with 92
> installed ports, which is very make-intensive operation if ports have origin
> recorded, as pkg_version(1) runs `make -V' for each port, shown that
> statically-compiled make is about 15% faster than dynamically-compiled. Sound like a
> reasonable speed gain for 100k binary size increase. What do people think?
IFF it's only 100k difference, methink it's a no brainer. A static make is a
good thing, if it's so good performancewise that I say go for it. pkg_version
is quite intensive, that's for sure!
Bye,
Andrea
--
The dark ages were caused by the Y1K problem.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010306194444.A2520>