* 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. --Mike
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
