In the last episode (Apr 17), Scott Long said: > John Polstra wrote: > >In article <20030418014500.B94094_at_iclub.nsu.ru>, Max Khon <fjoe_at_iclub.nsu.ru> wrote: > > > we need either allow dlopen(3) to be used in statically linked > > > programs or move to dynamically linked /. Or use an nscd like Solaris? > > Moving to a fully dynamically linked system sounds easier to me. > > But in the past there has been strong opposition to the idea every > > time it has been proposed. > > Right, because everyone is deathly afraid of /usr/lib not being > available and nothing working, or ld.so getting corrupt and nothing > working, or beagles falling from the sky and nothing working. FreeBSD > is one of the few Unix-like OS's left that isn't fully dynamically > linked. > > If switching to a fully dynamically linked system is desired before > 6.0 then it needs to happen before 5.2. I'm not opposed to this. I'm more worried about the performance hit than foot-shooting (schg is protection enough I think, and I like beagles). I believe dynamically-linked programs still are ~20% slower than static ones, and for small programs like sed, awk, expr, sh, basename, tr, and the like, the larger (constant) startup time becomes significant also. Anyone want to benchmark a medium-sized portbuild with static vs dynamic /bin and /sbin? -- Dan Nelson dnelson_at_allantgroup.comReceived on Thu Apr 17 2003 - 12:12:18 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:37:03 UTC