Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 00:07:31 -0500 (EST) From: "John S. Dyson" <toor@dyson.iquest.net> To: perlsta@sunyit.edu (Alfred Perlstein) Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: shared libraries? Message-ID: <199708280507.AAA07664@dyson.iquest.net> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.96.970827201206.27457A-100000@server.local.sunyit.edu> from Alfred Perlstein at "Aug 27, 97 08:16:16 pm"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Alfred Perlstein said: > > This is a strange question/idea, > > Why is the standard C library like the code in string.h, stdio.h ect. in > shared libraries? if need be, the programer could change his code and > make a new library. > We do have a shared lib facility. > > If most of the libraries were converted to a shared lib format wouldn't > that reduce memory and disk space requirements tremendously? > not only that, but complile times and exec times would soar, woudn't they? > Believe it or not, shared libs often hurt more than help. Even with an ideal scheme that is prelinked, a program can take MORE memory, not less. We share the .text of programs even without using shared libs. In the case of shells, shared libs are usually a loose. A rule of thumb that I use is (These are only my opinions): App type Shared libc? X applications* YES Shells NO Favorite editors no WWW servers no FTP servers no Sendmail no Build toolchain yes/no Random test pgm YES Other commonly invoked pgms yes Anything in /bin NO Anything in /sbin NO Anything in /usr/bin yes Anything in /usr/sbin no Anything in /usr/libexec no * X applications above can be extended to any package with an extensive library suite. -- John dyson@freebsd.org jdyson@nc.com
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199708280507.AAA07664>