Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 14:10:11 -0400 From: "Kevin P. Neal" <kpneal@pobox.com> To: "John S. Dyson" <toor@dyson.iquest.net> Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: shared libraries? Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19970828181011.009c0744@mail.mindspring.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 12:07 AM 8/28/97 -0500, John S. Dyson wrote: >> 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 1) Why would a program with shared libs using your "ideal scheme" use more memory? 2) Why are shared libs a lose in the case of shells? Are you just referring to the start up time required to get the libraries linked into the running executable? -- XCOMM Kevin P. Neal, Junior, Comp. Sci. - House of Retrocomputing XCOMM mailto:kpneal@pobox.com - http://www.pobox.com/~kpn/ XCOMM kpneal@eos.ncsu.edu Spoken by Keir Finlow-Bates: XCOMM "Good grief, I've just noticed I've typed in a rant. Sorry chaps!"
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1.5.4.32.19970828181011.009c0744>