In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Arun Sharma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is there a strong reason why FreeBSD rtld uses lazy binding by default ?
1. Faster start-up times for programs.
2. Better interversion library compatibility. It doesn't matter if
a function is missing from a library, as long as the program never
calls it at runtime.
3. It's what everybody else has always done by default. I.e., it's
what users expect.
> In a multithreaded environment, this could make things pretty complex.
> What if a thread holds locks and fails at runtime due to a missing
> symbol ?
*shrug* The same thing that happens if a thread holds locks and
fails for any other reason.
> Also, is there a significant performance benefit to doing lazy binding ?
Start-up time is faster. Overall runtime might be faster or slower,
depending on the ratio of called functions to total functions.
John
--
John Polstra [EMAIL PROTECTED]
John D. Polstra & Co., Inc. Seattle, Washington USA
"Disappointment is a good sign of basic intelligence." -- Chögyam Trungpa
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
