On Thu, 2013-10-10 at 13:33 +0200, Roland Kaufmann wrote: > On 2013-10-10 13:21, Andreas Lauser wrote: > > Besides avoiding the wrath of corporate IT, it also comes with small > > performance benefits, since (as far as I understood it) dynamic linking > > requires indirect function calls which basically makes any entrypoint of the > > library a virtual method... > > Dynamic linking requires a fixup at load time; but the overhead caused > by this is very small
I don't know enough about linkers to address any of these points, but I do recall that someone (Markus?) pointed out on that at least on supercomputers, the (startup) cost of the dynamic linker resolving symbols is considerable. I haven't formed an opinion on what to do yet, so I'm soliciting input and (informed) opinions on the costs and benefits of static vs. dynamic linking by default. Bård _______________________________________________ Opm mailing list Opm@opm-project.org http://www.opm-project.org/mailman/listinfo/opm
