https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-Integrated-Performance/performace-between-dynamic-and-static-linkage/m-p/951114#M18646 <P>Hi,</P> <P>If all was done correctly there should not performance degradation. Did you call static dispatcher initialization? If you did not you can run PX code instead of optimized code.</P> <P>Btw, why did not you use IPP static libraries and dispatchers(merged/emerged)?</P> <P>Regards,<BR /> Vladimir</P> <DIV></DIV> Wed, 25 Jan 2006 06:47:34 GMT Vladimir_Dudnik 2006-01-25T06:47:34Z https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-Integrated-Performance/performace-between-dynamic-and-static-linkage/m-p/951113#M18645 <DIV>HI:</DIV> <DIV>I had use the ippmerged.c ippmerged.h and funclist.h to compile the static link version, but the performace decayed about 20%. Is there any suggestion for me? BTW,there is no problem to use the IPP4.0 with static link.</DIV> <DIV>regards</DIV> Fri, 13 Jan 2006 14:39:08 GMT https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-Integrated-Performance/performace-between-dynamic-and-static-linkage/m-p/951113#M18645 loca_huang 2006-01-13T14:39:08Z https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-Integrated-Performance/performace-between-dynamic-and-static-linkage/m-p/951114#M18646 <P>Hi,</P> <P>If all was done correctly there should not performance degradation. Did you call static dispatcher initialization? If you did not you can run PX code instead of optimized code.</P> <P>Btw, why did not you use IPP static libraries and dispatchers(merged/emerged)?</P> <P>Regards,<BR /> Vladimir</P> <DIV></DIV> Wed, 25 Jan 2006 06:47:34 GMT https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-Integrated-Performance/performace-between-dynamic-and-static-linkage/m-p/951114#M18646 Vladimir_Dudnik 2006-01-25T06:47:34Z