Re: Mandatory -dbg packages for libraries?
On Wed, May 09, 2007 at 11:28:49AM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> On 09-May-07, 04:02 (CDT), Wouter Verhelst <email@example.com> wrote:
> > I'm not entirely sure about the specifics, and especially not across
> > architectures; but regardless, doing a PLT lookup is more expensive than
> > doing a function call to something that was statically linked in.
> True. Now, does anyone have measurements to show that this has
> any actual significance in real world code on modern hardware?
I don't see why that would be relevant. We're not providing statically
linked binaries; we are providing static libraries so that people who
want them can perform static linking for their own in-house software.
Anything more than that (including the decision on whether or not it's a
good idea to do static linking, considering the fact that the
maintenance overhead for statically linked binaries is significantly
higher) is up to the user, anyway.
Build a system that even a fool can use, and only a fool will
want to use it.