* M. Warner Losh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [031126 14:51]:
> In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>             Michael Edenfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> : They were on a single CPU Athlon 500 with 320MB of RAM.
> 320MB is not enough RAM not to swap.
> However, having said that, I think everybody realizes the following:
>       1) Dynamic linking is slower.
>       2) Speed improvements in this area are possible, as
>          demonstrated by other projects.
>       3) PIC code is slower than non-PIC code, in general, and also
>          gcc runs about 5-10% slower depending on if you are running
>          out of a shared library or a static one.  shared libraries
>          must use PIC code (at this time).
>       4) People like to complain.

Just for the record, I've been running WITH_DYNAMICROOT since nearly the
day it came out and don't *notice* any problems.  Mostly because the
noise of dynamic linking overhead gets lost in the noise of "my hardware
sucks so bad I have to take a vacation during buildworlds."  My startup
takes upwards of 5 minutes anyway, another 45 seconds won't even make me
blink.  I'm certainly not complaining about the performance :)

I only posted those numbers to:

1) Give real world numbers, not "interesting but unrealistic numbers"
2) Show that even worst-case numbers weren't on the level of 40% slowdown.
3) Hopefully help someone figure out where to best improve the dynamic linker.


Attachment: pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to