>> Most executables are not performance-critical enough for >> dynamic-linker overhead to matter. (For the few that are, or for >> the few cases where lots are, yes, static linking can help.) > I keep telling myself that whenever I launch Firefox after a reboot > ...
Do you have reason to think dynamic-linker overhead is a perceptible fraction of that delay? >> [file formats and protocols] > First off, the C standard mandates that the order of fields in a > struct cannot be reordered, Yes. (I think this is a Bad Thing, but I can see why they did it.) > so that just leaves padding and byte order to deal with. And data type size. (To pick a simple example, if your bytes are nonets, you will have an interesting time generating an octet stream by overlaying a struct onto a buffer.) And alignment. Not all protocols and file formats place every datatype at naturally-aligned boundaries in the octet stream. > Now, it may sound cavalier of me, but of the three compilers I use at > work (gcc, clang, Solaris Sun Works thingy) I know how to get them to > layout the structs exactly as I need them Great. ...for code that doesn't mind writing off portability to other, including future, hardware and compilers. I still don't see why you're citing "it works for my work environment" as justification for "the C standard should write off anything else". /~\ The ASCII Mouse \ / Ribbon Campaign X Against HTML mo...@rodents-montreal.org / \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
