This is the mail archive of the crossgcc@sourceware.org mailing list for the crossgcc project.

See the CrossGCC FAQ for lots more information.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: static builds versus dynamic

From: Dan Kegel <dank at kegel dot com>
To: Bill Gatliff <bgat at billgatliff dot com>
Cc: crossgcc <crossgcc at sources dot redhat dot com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 20:40:09 -0800
Subject: Re: static builds versus dynamic
References: <200601190340.13695.romank@randrlabs.com> <43D10022.9060005@billgatliff.com>

On 1/20/06, Bill Gatliff <bgat@billgatliff.com> wrote:
> In contrast, dynamic programs generally seem to load a bit quicker, but
> may be sluggish at first as the dynamic linker drags in libraries as
> they are needed.  I'm not completely sure this is even perceptible to
> the user, and it very quickly goes away.

Apps that have hundreds of shared libraries *do* load very slowly,
but I think Andrew Chatham has a patch to fix that.
- Dan

--
Wine for Windows ISVs: http://kegel.com/wine/isv

------
Want more information?  See the CrossGCC FAQ, http://www.objsw.com/CrossGCC/
Want to unsubscribe? Send a note to crossgcc-unsubscribe@sourceware.org

Follow-Ups:
- Re: static builds versus dynamic
  - From: Bill Gatliff

References:
- static builds versus dynamic
  - From: Roman
- Re: static builds versus dynamic
  - From: Bill Gatliff

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]