From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from gw.goop.org ([206.170.148.147]) by hawkwind.utcs.utoronto.ca with SMTP id <25059>; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 17:33:26 -0500
Received: from ixodes.goop.org (ixodes [192.168.0.5])
	by gw.goop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 0A2B562002; Wed, 12 Jan 2000 16:19:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: by ixodes.goop.org (Postfix, from userid 223)
	id 78A7AACDE6; Wed, 12 Jan 2000 16:19:06 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <XFMail.000112161906.jeremy@goop.org>
X-Mailer: XFMail 1.3 [p0] on Linux
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <ezkAAOYxczhcXQwA@ltsun0.star.le.ac.uk>
From:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>
To:	Tim Goodwin <tjg@star.le.ac.uk>
Subject: RE: Dynamically loading readline on demand (was Re: rc futures)
Cc:	rc@hawkwind.utcs.toronto.edu
Date:	Wed, 12 Jan 2000 19:19:36 -0500


On 05-Jan-00 Tim Goodwin wrote:
> Here are the results I got on my 200MHz Linux PC (us = microseconds).
> 
>     rc.static      744us
>     rc.rl.static   865us
>     rc.dynamic    1071us
>     rc.rl.dynamic 1442us
> 
> (The raw data, together with file sizes, are appended.  Lest you think
> that this is a quirk of Linux, I have even more dramatic results from
> SunOS 5.  Why does dynamic linking increase the user time?  I have no
> idea, but it reliably does on both these platforms.)

I had noticed the same thing.  I tend build two versions of rc: "rci" for
interactive use, which contains readline, and plain "rc" which is minimal and
statically linked, for scripts.  I've never noticed a real-world performance
difference between them.

        J