> "Did you read the entire article? The whole point was that "delay loading" a particular DLL prevents a static analysis in the compiler from inserting hooks to perform expensive operations."
I actually have read the entire article. Have you?
Your explanation has absolutely nothing to do with the performance gains observed. Moreover, in the context of delay-loaded DLLs, your explanation actually makes no sense whatsoever.
Delay loaded DLLs, a linker/loader optimization Microsoft has offered since the days of C++ 6.0 (1998), simply means most process invocations in OP's case won't actually end up loading said DLLs, reducing the amount of time spent in DLL_PROCESS_ATTACH/DLL_PROCESS_DETACH (and specifically during destruction, in the Kernel).
I actually have read the entire article. Have you?
Your explanation has absolutely nothing to do with the performance gains observed. Moreover, in the context of delay-loaded DLLs, your explanation actually makes no sense whatsoever.
Delay loaded DLLs, a linker/loader optimization Microsoft has offered since the days of C++ 6.0 (1998), simply means most process invocations in OP's case won't actually end up loading said DLLs, reducing the amount of time spent in DLL_PROCESS_ATTACH/DLL_PROCESS_DETACH (and specifically during destruction, in the Kernel).