On Wed, May 09, 2007 at 11:28:49AM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote: > On 09-May-07, 04:02 (CDT), Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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. -- Shaw's Principle: Build a system that even a fool can use, and only a fool will want to use it. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]