2 ms·

> I refuse to believe that disk space is less as it can leverage other libraries in the deps list to load at run time and other can use it too. If I remember c

> I refuse to believe that disk space is less as it can leverage other libraries in the deps list to load at run time and other can use it too. If I remember correctly, the argument goes someting like this: modern compilers, i.e. something as recent as the Plan 9 toolchain or a GCC version from this millenium, usually compile in only the necessary code with static linking, and not whole libraries. With dynamic linking, you always have to load the whole library into memory, which supposedly pays off only with heavily used libraries such as libc (e.g. think about how many libraries used by Firefox/Chromium are used by other programs). So the hope is (combined with a general strive for small programs), since text pages are shared between processes and statically linked programs only include the absolute necessary code you end up with a smaller memory footprint. (I'm not sure whether you save disk space, but I don't think that would be a problem nowadays. Heck, look at go binaries.) And I guess, the linker could do more whole-program-optimization on a statically linked program, since all the coude is available. > For static executable the same dependent library will have to linked to all binaries. Maintenance is a pain in the neck. Generally you would want to have a proper build system. In case of StaLi, they have one global git repository (/.git). An update is simply "git pull && make install". I don't know if this process is slower or faster than binary updates, but if they strive for small programs/binaries, then I guess it doesn't matter as much. Source-based distributions, such as Gentoo, have the advantage that you don't have to wait for someone to publish an upgraded binary, you can compile it yourself, instead. This might give you a slight edge for security vulnerabilities.

pjmlp 10y ago
Modern compilers?! Static linking was already like that in MS-DOS compilers.
- modifieddog 10y ago
  > Modern compilers? I was being partially ironic. It seems that the common assumption is still that you (statically) link in the whole library. Then, of course, binaries get really huge. But when you link in only what's necessary, the overhead is probably relatively small (when was the last time you used all of libc?). The other thing is (which you can see in this thread, as well), people seem to think that you can do things only the way we are doing them now without ever questioning whether these things are still apropriate and how they originally came into existence. ("There has to be dynamic linking", "we have to use virutal memory", "there have to be at least 5 levels of caches", etc.) To my knowledge, all the reasons regarding saving space, security, and maintenance were all made up after the fact (and aren't necessarily true, even (or especially) with modern implementations). Originally, dynamic linking was intended for swapping in code at runtime (was it Multics or OS/360?), which you can't do anymore today. Furthermore, dynamic linking (as it is done today) is really complex. In contrast, static linking is much simpler (=> fewer bugs/security holes). I think we should reconsider if the overhead is worth it or not (do you really care whether your binaries make up 100MB or 200MB on your 1TB HDD?). For embedded devices: yes, space does matter, but you probably don't run a full fledged Ubuntu desktop on you IoT device, anyway. You use different approaches (e.g. busybox, buildroot, etc.).
0xcde4c3db 10y ago
> you always have to load the whole library into memory Not really. You do have to mmap it, but it can be demand-paged (executables are handled this way on most modern systems, which is why compressed executables are usually a bad idea). IIRC, what saves time is mostly not having to do the actual linking part where the references are resolved. This can be precomputed and stashed in the binary (an optimization well-known to Gentoo+KDE users), but that confuses some package managers, breaks some uses of dlopen()/dlsym(), and has issues with ASLR.

pjmlp 10y ago

Modern compilers?! Static linking was already like that in MS-DOS compilers.

modifieddog 10y ago
> Modern compilers? I was being partially ironic. It seems that the common assumption is still that you (statically) link in the whole library. Then, of course, binaries get really huge. But when you link in only what's necessary, the overhead is probably relatively small (when was the last time you used all of libc?). The other thing is (which you can see in this thread, as well), people seem to think that you can do things only the way we are doing them now without ever questioning whether these things are still apropriate and how they originally came into existence. ("There has to be dynamic linking", "we have to use virutal memory", "there have to be at least 5 levels of caches", etc.) To my knowledge, all the reasons regarding saving space, security, and maintenance were all made up after the fact (and aren't necessarily true, even (or especially) with modern implementations). Originally, dynamic linking was intended for swapping in code at runtime (was it Multics or OS/360?), which you can't do anymore today. Furthermore, dynamic linking (as it is done today) is really complex. In contrast, static linking is much simpler (=> fewer bugs/security holes). I think we should reconsider if the overhead is worth it or not (do you really care whether your binaries make up 100MB or 200MB on your 1TB HDD?). For embedded devices: yes, space does matter, but you probably don't run a full fledged Ubuntu desktop on you IoT device, anyway. You use different approaches (e.g. busybox, buildroot, etc.).

0xcde4c3db 10y ago

> you always have to load the whole library into memory Not really. You do have to mmap it, but it can be demand-paged (executables are handled this way on most modern systems, which is why compressed executables are usually a bad idea). IIRC, what saves time is mostly not having to do the actual linking part where the references are resolved. This can be precomputed and stashed in the binary (an optimization well-known to Gentoo+KDE users), but that confuses some package managers, breaks some uses of dlopen()/dlsym(), and has issues with ASLR.