JTK wrote:
>
> "Static build" refers to a build in which some of the DLLs (or shared
> objects if you're on one of those 'alternative' OSs) are built as static
> libraries and are statically linked into the program. What this does is
> effectively make the library an intergral part of the program, instead
> of a separate "loadable module" which the OS has to load at runtime and
> then 'link' into the main program, thus saving a bit of work at runtime.
>
> I don't believe there are separate "static builds" available, nor will
> there be, I think the plan is to just make some of the DLLs into static
> libraries wherever it makes sense
> *COUGH*somethingIsuggestedmonthsago*COUGH* in the main trunk.
see http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=46775 for discussion of
static builds[1]. They aren't turned on by default yet - I'm not sure if
there's a bug tracking this or not. There are definitely still some open
issues (see recent "Performance meeting agenda" posting in
n.p.m.performance for specifics). In the interim it is possible to
create a static build with some compile time options, but I'm not sure
you would want to right now due to the outstanding issues. I don't know
if there's anywhere that you can download these experimental builds
from, but there might be.
The plan, as I understand it (I could be very wrong - I just watch from
the outside), is to have just a few big DLLs (or SOs on unix; don't know
the Mac equivalent) rather than lots and lots of little ones as we do
now. This should save considerable time on startup[2]...
Stuart.
Footnotes mostly intended for JTK's benefit:
[1] Having "suggested it months ago", I suppose you noticed the
existance of this bugzilla bug, and also noted the date it was filed and
how many months people have already been working on it...
[2] This is just one more major contributor to startup time compared to,
say, K-Meleon... that has absolutely nothing to do with XUL.
