Re: Mandatory -dbg packages for libraries?
On 20-May-07, 13:41 (CDT), Wouter Verhelst <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Wed, May 09, 2007 at 11:28:49AM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> > On 09-May-07, 04:02 (CDT), Wouter Verhelst <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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.
Why should we spend time and space to provide something that doesn't
do anything useful? Nothing prevents the users who want static
linking from building their own libraries. My guess is that those who
do need these kinds of small gains are compiling the relevant libraries
and programs from scratch anyway, using the carefully tuned compiler
options that they've measured as performing the best on their particular
 Or maybe it does...no one has provided measurements, yet.
The irony is that Bill Gates claims to be making a stable operating
system and Linus Torvalds claims to be trying to take over the
world. -- seen on the net