Re: [9fans] wmii? 9p2000 compliant window manager.

["Anselm R. Garbe" <garbeam@gmail.com>]

On Sun, Nov 20, 2005 at 09:35:17AM -0500, Russ Cox wrote:
> > In contrast to plan9port we also link
> > statically against libc.
> 
> Is there any benefit to doing this,
> given that the rest of the system does not?

Only exec() speedups due to missing dynamic linking stuff,
because we execute approx. 400 processes (statically linked,
which do call wmir, which is something similiar to the 9p(1)
client, writing setup stuff to the file servers) while
initialization through the wmirc script, but in general not
noticable on modern hardware (though measurable, I determined in
a dynamic rc vs static rc comparision about 500% speedup in
exec() throughput, only due to the fact of static linking).  In
Linux dynamic loading seems pretty fast compared to OpenBSD,
what I'm using frequently and where you even notice the
difference between static and dynamic binary execution if you
run wmii with 9base (static) OR with plan9port (dynamic).

Regards,
-- 
 Anselm R. Garbe  ><><  www.ebrag.de  ><><  GPG key: 0D73F361