svn commit: r353937 - in head/share: man/man5 mk

[Alexey Dokuchaev]

On Sat, Oct 26, 2019 at 04:34:14PM +0200, Dimitry Andric wrote:
> > On 24 Oct 2019, at 14:49, Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe at FreeBSD.org> wrote:
> > What are the benefits of the new order?
> 
> The advantages and disadvantages of dynamic linking are a contentious
> and almost religious issue, so I hope you don't mind that I will not go
> into this.

OK. :-)

> > What about those of us who cannot use BEs, VMs, and other "cloudy"
> > tech because, well, they might not work as well and reliably as one
> > might think?
> 
> There are many possibilities, such as making backups, using
> WITHOUT_SHARED_TOOLCHAIN (and hoping that you can compile/link your way
> out of a botched installation), or even using NO_SHARED.

WITHOUT_SHARED_TOOLCHAIN sounds good, I hope it won't go away one day.

> > Very good point. [about regressed performance]
> 
> But if you take this point to its logical conclusion, then you should
> link everything statically, and never use dynamic linking at all. :)

Toolchain is special: many people prefer (or have to) build their ports
and stuff; even those who prefer binary packages may need to test their
ports in a tinderbox or p*re.  In other words, I don't mind Firefox being
dynalinked because I launch it once a month, contrary to the compiler.

> I only tested -j24 on a 32-core system, but I could probably repeat the
> experiment with lower and higher -j values: [...]
> 
> So ~2.3% difference in real time, which is not too bad I think.

Well, I'd say it's acceptable. :-/

> There are probably opportunities to improve the performance of the
> dynamic linker, which would be beneficial to every program in the
> system.

Now that's a good point; I look forward to it!  Thanks for replying,

./danfe