On Wed, 2012-09-26 at 09:49 +0100, Richard Purdie wrote: > On Tue, 2012-09-25 at 18:11 -0400, Colin Walters wrote: > > On Tue, 2012-09-25 at 23:00 +0100, Phil Blundell wrote: > > > > > That'd be inconsistent with other packages, since we do generally build > > > and ship the static libraries. Having a big switch to turn off static > > > libraries globally seems like a fine plan, but I can't see any obvious > > > reason why the util-linux ones are any more useless than the rest. > > > > Makes sense. I wonder if there are actually any users of the static > > libraries. > > > > For what it's worth in gnome-ostree I do just globally pass > > --disable-static by default. > > I tested this a while back to see what performance difference it made. > The answer was "nothing too significant", I don't have the exact timings > handy. I do remember having to exclude sqlite-native from the list since > pseudo static links against it.
It's slightly surprising that it doesn't make that much of a difference, given that building static libraries does essentially double the number of compilations for library code. Though, of course, glibc doesn't support --disable-static nowadays and there might be a few other big packages that have the same issue. I guess that if you have enough cores, compilation count becomes something of a non-issue since it's one of the few things that does parallelize very well. It might be interesting to repeat the measurements of --disable-static on a machine with only a few CPUs and see whether it makes more of a difference there. Out of interest, why does pseudo static-link against sqlite anyway? p. _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
