:> Any updates? My quick test involving running pkg_version on a system with 92
:> installed ports, which is very make-intensive operation if ports have origin
:> recorded, as pkg_version(1) runs `make -V' for each port, shown that
:> statically-compiled make is about 15% faster than dynamically-compiled. Sound like a
:> reasonable speed gain for 100k binary size increase. What do people think?
:
:IFF it's only 100k difference, methink it's a no brainer. A static make is a
:good thing, if it's so good performancewise that I say go for it. pkg_version
:is quite intensive, that's for sure!
:
:Bye,
: Andrea
'make' is one of those programs that fork/exec's lots of copies of
itself, even when used without -j parallelization. Try doing a
'make' in virtually any ports directory, ^Z it, then do a ps and
you will see what I mean.
Static binaries will not only start up much more quickly then dynamic
binaries, they actually eat *less* memory if you are running a whole
bunch of them independantly (independantly exec'd). Make fits this
description to a T. Normally I would argue against making things
static, I definitely do *NOT* agree with the 'system recovery' reasoning
for making 'make' static. But I do agree that static is much better
with regard to all the fork/exec'ing make does. I think making
'make' static is a very good idea.
-Matt
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
