sites

Unnamed repository; edit this file 'description' to name the repository.
Log | Files | Refs

commit b6553c983e412e6466463bfa75c0c1ba357b55c6
parent 4c25b668f4a2d623a573f85aa99ba6ff2921d534
Author: Neven Sajko <nsajko@gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 26 Dec 2014 04:17:38 +0100

Correct two writing mistakes

A phrase used mistakenly and a spelling mistake.

Diffstat:
Msta.li/faq.md | 4++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/sta.li/faq.md b/sta.li/faq.md @@ -124,11 +124,11 @@ So all in all dynamic executables are painfully slow, regardless of what inelegant hacks people came up with in the past. There is zero evidence that dynamic linking makes executables faster. There is only some evidence that preloading dynamic libraries vs not preloading dynamic libraries improves the -startup of dynamic executables. But the introduction of preloading comes to a +startup of dynamic executables. But the introduction of preloading comes at a cost as well, the kernel will have to do much more work when supporting such contrivances. -Dynamic linking also greately increases the complexity of the kernel VM and +Dynamic linking also greatly increases the complexity of the kernel VM and makes it much slower. And kludgy solutions to this make things more complicated and add many more points of total failure.