[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bits from dpkg developers - dpkg 1.16.1

On 2011-10-02 23:08, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
On Sun, 02 Oct 2011, Florian Weimer wrote:
Couldn't we get rid of static libraries altogether, replacing static
linking with ahead-of-time dynamic linking?

[1] but I don't feel strong enough about it to get in the way if we do
decide to drop static libs.

I would defend static libs for scientific apps. Static libs show a significant performance benefit (2-40%, median around 5-10% but sometimes far more with C++ apps) and so are standard in HPC still; so I ship them in my packages even though they are not used
much within the software shipped _by_ debian, but are used by our users.

Note: this is for static libs without -fPIC. I'm not sure there is much benefit in shipping PIC static libs, (or potentially PIE codes); they are also highly unlikely to be used in 'web-facing' environments, and be security-sensitive; they are likely to be built by the user, used by that particular user alone, and hence should not be built with any
security features( eg PIE) that cause performance degradation.

Alastair McKinstry  ,<alastair@sceal.ie>  ,<mckinstry@debian.org>     http://blog.sceal.ie

Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world
is either a madman or an economist - Kenneth Boulter, Economist.

Reply to: