On Sat, Oct 26, 2019 at 04:34:14PM +0200, Dimitry Andric wrote: > > On 24 Oct 2019, at 14:49, Alexey Dokuchaev <da...@freebsd.org> wrote: > > What are the benefits of the new order? > > The advantages and disadvantages of dynamic linking are a contentious > and almost religious issue, so I hope you don't mind that I will not go > into this.
OK. :-) > > What about those of us who cannot use BEs, VMs, and other "cloudy" > > tech because, well, they might not work as well and reliably as one > > might think? > > There are many possibilities, such as making backups, using > WITHOUT_SHARED_TOOLCHAIN (and hoping that you can compile/link your way > out of a botched installation), or even using NO_SHARED. WITHOUT_SHARED_TOOLCHAIN sounds good, I hope it won't go away one day. > > Very good point. [about regressed performance] > > But if you take this point to its logical conclusion, then you should > link everything statically, and never use dynamic linking at all. :) Toolchain is special: many people prefer (or have to) build their ports and stuff; even those who prefer binary packages may need to test their ports in a tinderbox or p*re. In other words, I don't mind Firefox being dynalinked because I launch it once a month, contrary to the compiler. > I only tested -j24 on a 32-core system, but I could probably repeat the > experiment with lower and higher -j values: [...] > > So ~2.3% difference in real time, which is not too bad I think. Well, I'd say it's acceptable. :-/ > There are probably opportunities to improve the performance of the > dynamic linker, which would be beneficial to every program in the > system. Now that's a good point; I look forward to it! Thanks for replying, ./danfe _______________________________________________ svn-src-head@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-head To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-head-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
