From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu Aug 28 11:11:16 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA12967 for hackers-outgoing; Thu, 28 Aug 1997 11:11:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from brickbat8.mindspring.com (brickbat8.mindspring.com [207.69.200.11]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA12954 for ; Thu, 28 Aug 1997 11:11:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bogus.mindspring.com (user-38lc522.dialup.mindspring.com [209.86.20.66]) by brickbat8.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA19938; Thu, 28 Aug 1997 14:10:51 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19970828181011.009c0744@mail.mindspring.com> X-Sender: kpneal@mail.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 14:10:11 -0400 To: "John S. Dyson" From: "Kevin P. Neal" Subject: Re: shared libraries? Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk 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!"