Re: Unfortunate dynamic linking for everything

On Tue, 18 Nov 2003, M. Warner Losh wrote:

> In message: <200311181307.hAID7uHa032514_at_dyson.jdyson.com>
>             dyson_at_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