obrien wrote @ Tue, 25 Nov 2003 18:55:05 -0800: > On Tue, Nov 25, 2003 at 03:07:55PM +1030, Daniel O'Connor wrote: > > What about the newer version of gcc? That is considerably slower than > > previous versions, but I don't see people screaming to have it removed. > > Uh... you must not know what you are talking about. GCC *COMPILES* > slower as it does a better job of optimizing (which adds time to the > compiling time). The produced optimzied binaries have quicker > *RUN-TIME*s.
For C++ maybe, for C compile times (tripled?) stood in no relation to the run-time "improvements" (minor to negative), but GCC ppl are constantly improving (3.3 and on) and 2.9x was a dead horse. I see only very minor relation to the static/dynamic discussion. I don't know what the reason is for going dynamic by default _now_, but i am sure it got nothing to do with the unbelievable points presented till now like space savings or NSS. Stuff gets default when it's ready, and that would in this case mean after performance of dynamic binaries has improved and those ppl that want to introduce it present a solution, where everything has been thought of, and discussions like /bin/sh or /sbin/sh have already been had and solved. Introduce dynamic option now. Improve dynamic linking and make a good solution for a rescue. Then and only then make it the default. Everything else leads to threads like these, because it doesn't make sense to ppl. aha _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
