Subject: Re: HEADS UP: migration to fully dynamic linked "base" system
To: David Laight <email@example.com>
From: David Brownlee <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 08/26/2002 19:11:43
On Mon, 26 Aug 2002, David Laight wrote:
> > Please read the thread on tech-userlevel. There are a lot of good reasons
> > for doing this, all of which involve now being able to dlopen() libraries.
> It ought to be possible to build a dynamically linked program
> that does not use the dynamic libc.so This ought to speed up
> program startup (where this is significant) while still allowing
> dlopen() to be used in specific functions.
I think that was discussed a while back and involves breaking
(or extending if you prefer :) the ELF spec, and changes
to the toolchain which would not be bought back by the gnu
people. That would mean an out-of-the-box gnu toolchain
would not be able to target a dynamic NetBSD system (A Bad
> I was going to look at the kernel elf exec code - it would probably
> be benefitial for it to keep a reference to the vnode for elf
> interpreters (with maybe a sysctl to dump the list for debug).
> I've also just make /usr/lib/libc.so.12 a hard link to libc.so.12.86,
> this improves my test to 1.520 (or so) - total gain 9%
> So removing the symlink is actually a bigger gain...
Interesting. It would seem that there is not as much caching as
there should be...
David/absolute -- www.netbsd.org: No hype required --