Re: [RFC] Un-staticise the toolchain

Den 26/04/2012 kl. 22.30 skrev Chris Rees:

> On 26 April 2012 20:15, Matthew Seaman =
<m.seaman@infracaninophile.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 26/04/2012 20:01, Chris Rees wrote:
>>> hydra# cd /usr/ports && time make MAKE=3D~crees/bin/make-static =
index
>>>=20
>>> Generating INDEX-9 - please wait.. Done.
>>> 729.770u 120.841s 7:45.10 182.8%        920+2676k 5251+116484io =
7750pf+0w
>>>=20
>>> hydra# time make MAKE=3D~crees/bin/make-dynamic index
>>>=20
>>> Generating INDEX-9 - please wait.. Done.
>>> 771.320u 133.540s 8:07.83 185.4%        609+2918k 474+116484io =
570pf+0w
>>>=20
>>> We have a 10% slowdown (or 11% speedup, depending on your figures) =
when
>>> using a dynamically loaded make.
>>=20
>> I don't think you can validly conclude much from just one sample of =
each
>> type.  Try repeating those tests enough that you can do some decent
>> statistics.
>>=20
>> Oh, and you should probably either discard the first few results, or
>> else take pains to flush[*] the buffer cache between each run, so you
>> end up measuring the same thing repeatably.
>=20
> Had I done the tests the other way around, I may agree with you, but
> the second test should benefit from any buffering, and it is *still*
> slower.
>=20
> Look, I know it's not a perfect benchmark, it was just some food for
> thought-- a difference of 10% is pretty significant, and I don't think
> you can blame that on a solar flare.

Can anyone explain to me why the dynamically linked version is =
significantly slower? What are the extra steps involved compared to a =
statically linked binary?

Thanks,
Erik=
_______________________________________________
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"