我同意dnmckee提到的观点，另外:

静态链接的应用程序可能更容易部署，因为很少或没有额外的文件依赖项(.dll / .so)，当它们丢失或安装在错误的位置时，可能会导致问题。

Dynamic linking can reduce total resource consumption (if more than one process shares the same library (including the version in "the same", of course)). I believe this is the argument that drives its presence in most environments. Here "resources" include disk space, RAM, and cache space. Of course, if your dynamic linker is insufficiently flexible there is a risk of DLL hell. Dynamic linking means that bug fixes and upgrades to libraries propagate to improve your product without requiring you to ship anything. Plugins always call for dynamic linking. Static linking, means that you can know the code will run in very limited environments (early in the boot process, or in rescue mode). Static linking can make binaries easier to distribute to diverse user environments (at the cost of sending a larger and more resource-hungry program). Static linking may allow slightly faster startup times, but this depends to some degree on both the size and complexity of your program and on the details of the OS's loading strategy.

Some edits to include the very relevant suggestions in the comments and in other answers. I'd like to note that the way you break on this depends a lot on what environment you plan to run in. Minimal embedded systems may not have enough resources to support dynamic linking. Slightly larger small systems may well support dynamic linking because their memory is small enough to make the RAM savings from dynamic linking very attractive. Full-blown consumer PCs have, as Mark notes, enormous resources, and you can probably let the convenience issues drive your thinking on this matter.

要解决性能和效率问题:视情况而定。

通常情况下，动态库需要某种粘合层，这通常意味着双重分派或函数寻址中额外的间接层，并且可能会消耗一点速度(但是函数调用时间实际上是运行时间的很大一部分吗??)

但是，如果您正在运行多个进程，并且它们都经常调用同一个库，那么使用动态链接而不是静态链接时，您最终可以节省缓存行(从而赢得运行性能)。(除非现代操作系统足够智能，能够在静态链接的二进制文件中注意到相同的段。似乎很难，有人知道吗?)

另一个问题:加载时间。你需要支付装货费用。你什么时候支付这个费用取决于操作系统的工作方式以及你使用的链接。也许你宁愿推迟支付，直到你知道你需要它。

注意，静态链接与动态链接传统上不是一个优化问题，因为它们都涉及到对目标文件的单独编译。然而，这并不是必需的:原则上，编译器可以最初将“静态库”“编译”到一个摘要的AST表单中，并通过将这些AST添加到为主代码生成的AST中来“链接”它们，从而实现全局优化。我使用的系统都没有做到这一点，所以我不能评论它的工作效果如何。

回答性能问题的方法总是通过测试(并尽可能使用与部署环境相似的测试环境)。

我同意dnmckee提到的观点，另外:

静态链接的应用程序可能更容易部署，因为很少或没有额外的文件依赖项(.dll / .so)，当它们丢失或安装在错误的位置时，可能会导致问题。

1)基于这样一个事实，即调用DLL函数总是使用额外的间接跳转。如今，这通常可以忽略不计。在DLL内部，i386 CPU上有一些更多的开销，因为它们不能生成与位置无关的代码。在amd64上，跳转可以相对于程序计数器，因此这是一个巨大的改进。

2)这是正确的。通过分析引导的优化，您通常可以获得大约10- 15%的性能。既然CPU速度已经达到极限，那么这样做可能是值得的。

我想补充的是:(3)链接器可以将函数安排在一个更有效的缓存分组中，从而将昂贵的缓存级别的失败最小化。它还可能特别影响应用程序的启动时间(基于我在Sun c++编译器中看到的结果)

不要忘记，使用dll不能执行死代码消除。根据语言的不同，DLL代码也可能不是最佳的。虚函数总是虚函数，因为编译器不知道客户端是否正在覆盖它。

由于这些原因，如果不需要dll，那么就使用静态编译。

编辑(通过用户下划线回答注释)

这里有一个关于职位独立代码问题的很好的资源http://eli.thegreenplace.net/2011/11/03/position-independent-code-pic-in-shared-libraries/

正如所解释的，x86除了15位跳转范围之外没有其他的AFAIK，也没有无条件跳转和调用。这就是为什么函数(来自生成器)超过32K一直是一个问题，需要嵌入蹦床。

But on popular x86 OS like Linux you do not need to care if the .so/DLL file is not generated with the gcc switch -fpic (which enforces the use of the indirect jump tables). Because if you don't, the code is just fixed like a normal linker would relocate it. But while doing this it makes the code segment non shareable and it would need a full mapping of the code from disk into memory and touching it all before it can be used (emptying most of the caches, hitting TLBs) etc. There was a time when this was considered slow.

这样你就没有任何收益了。

我不记得什么操作系统(Solaris或FreeBSD)给我的Unix构建系统的问题，因为我只是没有这样做，不知道为什么它崩溃，直到我应用-fPIC到gcc。

在大量且越来越多的系统中，极端的静态链接可以对应用程序和系统性能产生巨大的积极影响。

我指的是通常所说的“嵌入式系统”，其中许多现在越来越多地使用通用操作系统，这些系统被用于所有可以想象到的事情。

An extremely common example are devices using GNU/Linux systems using Busybox. I've taken this to the extreme with NetBSD by building a bootable i386 (32-bit) system image that includes both a kernel and its root filesystem, the latter which contains a single static-linked (by crunchgen) binary with hard-links to all programs that itself contains all (well at last count 274) of the standard full-feature system programs (most except the toolchain), and it is less than 20 megabytes in size (and probably runs very comfortably in a system with only 64MB of memory (even with the root filesystem uncompressed and entirely in RAM), though I've been unable to find one so small to test it on).

It has been mentioned in earlier posts that the start-up time of a static-linked binaries is faster (and it can be a lot faster), but that is only part of the picture, especially when all object code is linked into the same file, and even more especially when the operating system supports demand paging of code direct from the executable file. In this ideal scenario the startup time of programs is literally negligible since almost all pages of code will already be in memory and be in use by the shell (and and init any other background processes that might be running), even if the requested program has not ever been run since boot since perhaps only one page of memory need be loaded to fulfill the runtime requirements of the program.

However that's still not the whole story. I also usually build and use the NetBSD operating system installs for my full development systems by static-linking all binaries. Even though this takes a tremendous amount more disk space (~6.6GB total for x86_64 with everything, including toolchain and X11 static-linked) (especially if one keeps full debug symbol tables available for all programs another ~2.5GB), the result still runs faster overall, and for some tasks even uses less memory than a typical dynamic-linked system that purports to share library code pages. Disk is cheap (even fast disk), and memory to cache frequently used disk files is also relatively cheap, but CPU cycles really are not, and paying the ld.so startup cost for every process that starts every time it starts will take hours and hours of CPU cycles away from tasks which require starting many processes, especially when the same programs are used over and over, such as compilers on a development system. Static-linked toolchain programs can reduce whole-OS multi-architecture build times for my systems by hours. I have yet to build the toolchain into my single crunchgen'ed binary, but I suspect when I do there will be more hours of build time saved because of the win for the CPU cache.

动态链接是满足某些许可要求(如LGPL)的唯一实用方法。