Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 14:47:19 -0500 (EST) From: "John S. Dyson" <toor@dyson.iquest.net> To: kpneal@pobox.com (Kevin P. Neal) Cc: toor@dyson.iquest.net, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: shared libraries? Message-ID: <199708281947.OAA02703@dyson.iquest.net> In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19970828181011.009c0744@mail.mindspring.com> from "Kevin P. Neal" at "Aug 28, 97 02:10:11 pm"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Kevin P. Neal said: > 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? > I am getting a little impatient; So think about (.data, .bss) and how sparse that they can become due to ALL of modules being linked into the image, and not just the selected ones. Startup time is part of it, but think of a statically linked program as being more "compact." -- John dyson@freebsd.org jdyson@nc.com
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199708281947.OAA02703>