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

Re: Bits from dpkg developers - dpkg 1.16.1

On Mon, Oct 03, 2011 at 11:20:11AM +0100, Alastair McKinstry wrote:
> 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?
> >
> 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;

If you see that big a difference, you do a lot of cross-file calls in
tight loops.  This means you would greatly benefit of compiling with -flto
instead.  GCC doesn't allow linking flto objects from even slightly
different compiler versions though as gimple format is not considered
stable, so shipping precompiled static objects is no good.

So what about shipping source instead so the user can optimize the heck out
of it?

1KB		// Yo momma uses IPv4!

Reply to: