I'm quite happy to add this as an additional mode. It might even make
sense as the default.
I think my current motivation level is low enough that it will need to
wait for someone else to contribute a patch, though. ;)
P.S.: Clearly GHC embodies many careful and well-justified design
decisions, but I do think they have less ambitious performance targets
than I do with Ur/Web. With many Ur/Web apps running simultaneously on
one machine, duplicating the runtime system can make a big difference
for memory usage (especially if many of the apps are tiny!).
On 08/02/2016 07:47 PM, Benjamin Barenblat wrote:
On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 3:50 PM, Adam Chlipala <[email protected]> wrote:
There's already a static linking command-line option (not enabled by
default), though I think it has some unresolved rough edges.
I like dynamic linking for the scenario of many separate Ur/Web apps running
on one server, which relates to some plans I have for the near future.
As far as I can tell, urweb -static just passes -static to the
underlying C compiler, which doesn’t really work on GNU systems. glibc
uses dlopen(3) pretty pervasively, so you can’t generally link it
statically. I’d prefer the default behaviour to be for urweb to link
the runtime statically while still linking libc, libssl, libcrypto,
etc. dynamically. Then, the -static flag would link everything
statically, and we could add a -dynamic flag to link everything
dynamically.
For what it’s worth, this is basically how GHC works. Depending on how
you feel about GHC, that may be an argument in favour or against. :)
_______________________________________________
Ur mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.impredicative.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ur
