Re: Bits from dpkg developers - dpkg 1.16.1
* Alastair McKinstry <firstname.lastname@example.org> [111003 12:48]:
> 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++
Are those numbers only the position independent code (I guess mostly
the register available less) or also the PLT-relative calls?
The latter can usually be reduced a bit by using making functions
static, more by using -fvisibility=hidden (and marking to be
exported symbols) and totally by visibility combined with aliases.
So properly done (yes, yes, I know, scientific programming is the
opposite of properly done) the only downsize would be the missing
register, which should mostly only be measureable on 32 bit i386
Bernhard R. Link