This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: dynamic library cost (was RE: libtool, java woes)
- To: hans_boehm at hp dot com (Boehm, Hans)
- Subject: Re: dynamic library cost (was RE: libtool, java woes)
- From: Joern Rennecke <amylaar at cambridge dot redhat dot com>
- Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 22:43:43 +0100 (BST)
- Cc: aoliva at redhat dot com ('Alexandre Oliva'), tromey at redhat dot com,jsturm at one-point dot com (Jeff Sturm), java at gcc dot gnu dot org, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
> > From: Alexandre Oliva [mailto:aoliva@redhat.com]
> >
> > We either need libsupc++ to be a shared library, that both libstdc++
> > and libgcj depend on, or have libgcj depend on libstdc++.
> >
> One thing to keep in mind with all of this:
>
> I'm seeing significant overheads as a result of dynamic library calls. On a
> PII/300 machine, a (single-threaded) loop containing only free(malloc(8))
> runs more than 20% faster when it's linked statically. This is similar on
> an Itanium machine. I'm not sure how significant that is for typical C
> programs, nor how frequently something like libsupc++ is called. I believe
> it is currently very significant for libgcj and calls to the garbage
> collector library from libgcj.
Well, we could also say that on AIX, libsupc++.so is a symlink to
libstdc++.so .