Re: [RFC] Un-staticise the toolchain

Den 01/05/2012 kl. 07.52 skrev Tim Kientzle:
>=20
> On Apr 30, 2012, at 6:41 AM, Erik Cederstrand wrote:
>>=20
>> 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?
>=20
> At the risk of dramatically over-simplifying=85.
>=20
> When a static binary is started by the kernel, it does the following:
>  * Initializes some libc internals.
>  * Calls main.
>=20
> When a dynamic binary is started by the kernel, it does the following:
>  * Initializes some libc internals.
>  * For every dynamic library referenced by this executable:
>       - loads the dynamic library into memory
>       - fixes up references
>  * Calls main
>=20
> The process of loading the required libraries and fixing up references
> can be quite time-consuming.

Thanks for the explanation. In the previous 'make index' benchmark by =
Chris, make is called very often, which means the dynamic libraries =
should already be loaded into memory after the first run, right? Which =
means the extra time is being spent fixing up references?

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"