From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "Brian L. Stuart" <blstuart@bellsouth.net>
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net>
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 19:54:59 +0000
Message-Id: <022020091954.25159.499F0A93000007420000624722230706129B0A02D2089B9A019C04040A0DBF9B9D0E9A9B9C040D@att.net>
In-Reply-To: <20090220193401.KHHY16134.fed1rmmtao104.cox.net@fed1rmimpo03.cox.net>
Subject: Re: [9fans] impact of dynamic libraries on the speed of fork()
Topicbox-Message-UUID: a4c53164-ead4-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

> I wrote a really simple program, forktest.c.
> Next, I performed some experiments using this program.  Fork is faster
> for statically linked executables.  It becomes slower as more libraries
> are added to a dynamically linked executable.

What fascinates me here is that forktest doesn't even
use anything from those other libraries.  In the statically
linked case, listing an unneeded library is basically a
noop.  It appears to be rather more involved in the
world of GNU shared libraries.

BLS