Scribd
Upload
55 views25 pages

Static Linking VS. Dynamic Linking: Haitao Wang, Xiaomin Liu December 13, 2006

The document compares static and dynamic linking, discussing differences in executable size, loading time, running time, memory usage, and system calls. It analyzes these factors for small, medium, and large programs, and when varying the percentage of static libraries. Standard Linux programs are also examined.

Uploaded by

sqpoi
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPT, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
55 views25 pages

Static Linking VS. Dynamic Linking: Haitao Wang, Xiaomin Liu December 13, 2006

The document compares static and dynamic linking, discussing differences in executable size, loading time, running time, memory usage, and system calls. It analyzes these factors for small, medium, and large programs, and when varying the percentage of static libraries. Standard Linux programs are also examined.

Uploaded by

sqpoi
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPT, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 25

Static Linking VS.

Dynamic Linking
Haitao Wang, Xiaomin Liu
December 13, 2006
Static Linking
Carried out only once to produce an
executable file.

If static libraries are called, the linker will copy
all the modules referenced by the program
to the executable.

Dynamic Linking
Allows a process to add, remove, replace or
relocate object modules during its
execution.
If shared libraries are called,
1. Only copy a little reference information
when the executable file is created.
2. Completing the linking during loading time
or running time.

A Big Difference
If several processes call the same object
module of a shared library simultaneously,

Only one copy in memory (dynamic)
Several copies each for a process in
memory (static)
Which one is better, static or
dynamic?
Construct some programs of different size
linked in both versions to compare:
Executable size
Loading time
Running time
System call
Memory usage
Executable size (Byte)
Static Dynamic
(Loading)
Dynamic
(Running)
Small 422596 5152 6300
Median 431413 5152 6297
Large 443384 5134 6312
Loading time (us)
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
Small Median Large
Static
Loading
Running
Running time (s)
Number of System Calls
0
50
100
150
200
Small Median Large
Static
Loading
Running
Memory Usage (Byte)
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
One Process Five Diff
Programs
Five
Instances
Static
Dynamic
Change the Percentage of Static Lib
Produce several different versions of
executables by changing the percentage of
the static libraries among all libraries written
by ourselves when programs are linked
(those standard libs, such as libc, are
always dynamically linked).
Executable Sizes
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
0% 30% 60% 90% 100%
Percentage of Static Libraries
E
x
e

S
i
z
e

(
B
y
t
e
s
)
Loading Time
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
0% 30% 60% 90% 100%
Percentage of Static Libraries
L
o
a
d
i
n
g

T
i
m
e

(
u
s
)
Running Time
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0% 30% 60% 90% 100%
Percentage of Static Libraries
R
u
n
n
i
n
g

T
i
m
e

(
s
)
Static linking VS. Dynamic linking
Dynamic produces smaller executable files.
Dynamic consumes less memory.

Dynamic runs more slowly.
Dynamic has more system calls.
Dynamic need more loading time



Standard Programs
Some programs in Linux system are rebuilt.
Both static and dynamic versions are
created and some benchmarks are
compared.

PMEM, MPG123, FGET, VIM
Executable Size (Bytes)
PMEM MPG FGET VIM
Static 46043 979931 582796 9935633
Dynamic 17892 494443 93721 3875807
Number of System Calls
PMEM MPG FGET VIM
Static 5 34 11 1626
Dynamic 102 178 119 2218
Vim System Call
Sys call Open Close Read Stat64 Old_mmap
Static 88 58 473 11 40
Dynamic 296 102 569 55 110
Loading Time
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
PMEM MPG FGET VIM
Static
Dynamic
Sharing Across File System
Examine the contents of executables and
libraries in a standard Linux system.

Programs in /bin and /usr/bin are examined.


There are 1831 dynamically linked programs
and only one static linked (/bin/ash.static),
which also has its dynamic version (/bin/ash)
in the system.

Dynamic linking is dominant throughout the
system.


Most Frequently Referenced Libs
Name Directory Prog Num
libc.so.6 /lib/tls/libc.so.6 1831
ld-linux.so.2 /lib/ld-linux.so.2 1831
libm.so.6 /lib/tls/libm.so.6 1084
libdl.so.2 /lib/libdl.so.2 684
libz.so.1 /usr/lib/libz.so.1 596
libpthread.so.0 /lib/tls/libpthread.so.0 569
libresolv.so.2 /lib/libresolv.so.2 438
libX11.so.6
/usr/X11R6/lib/libX11.so.6
424
libXext.so.6
/usrX11R6/lib/libXext.so.6
412
Programs with Most Libs
Program Name Number of Libraries
Ximian-connector-setup-2.0 87
Evolution-2.0 75
Nautilus 70
Nautilus-file-management-properties
70
Srcore 70
Gnomemeeting 68
Create-branching-keyboard 67
Devhelp 67
Gok 67
Future Work
Build some much larger standard programs in both
versions and compare them.

Construct an entire system distribution both
statically and dynamically to evaluate the
performance.

You might also like