Shared vs static link performance hit --and Windows?

Christos TZOTZIOY Georgiou tzot at
Tue Jul 8 14:03:01 CEST 2003

Last night I was compiling the latest python snapshot at my home Linux
system (a K6-III @420 --the extra 20 Hz is overclocking :); then I tried
building a shared version of the interpreter.  I did some speed
comparisons, and pystone reported ~6090 pystones for the shared and
~7680 pystones for the (default) static build.

This is quite a difference, and while I do know what impact position
independent code has on libraries, this was the first time I measured a
difference of 25% in performance...

This is not a complaint (I am happy with the static build and its
speed), but it's a question because I know that in Windows the build is
"shared" (there's a python23.dll which is about the same as the .so of
the shared lib), and pystone performance is close to ~6100 pystones.

I might say something stupid since I am not an "expert" on Windows
architectures, but would it be feasible (and useful) to build a static
python.exe on windows?  Or is it that there would be no difference
performance-wise in the final interpreter?

Any replies are welcome.
TZOTZIOY, I speak England very best,
Microsoft Security Alert: the Matrix began as open source.

More information about the Python-list mailing list