From owner-freebsd-questions Tue May 16 2:46:42 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from dire.bris.ac.uk (dire.bris.ac.uk [137.222.10.60]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3AA2C37B59C for ; Tue, 16 May 2000 02:46:39 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk) Received: from mail.ilrt.bris.ac.uk by dire.bris.ac.uk with SMTP-PRIV with ESMTP; Tue, 16 May 2000 10:46:26 +0100 Received: from localhost (cmjg@localhost) by mail.ilrt.bris.ac.uk (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA16247; Tue, 16 May 2000 10:46:25 +0100 (BST) Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 10:46:25 +0100 (BST) From: Jan Grant To: Gustavo Vieira Goncalves Coelho Rios Cc: questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: what's the advantage... In-Reply-To: <3920AB51.22F54FCA@tdnet.com.br> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Tue, 16 May 2000, Gustavo Vieira Goncalves Coelho Rios wrote: > I got surprised when i compiled two versions of the same program, and > the one statically (-static flag) linked use less memory than that > dynamically linked. What sort of difference were you seeing? > How can one program that were static linked uses less memory that the > same one done using the default linking? I'd suspect that any (small) differences you're seeing could be attributed to mmapped .so files needing to be aligned with page boundaries. -- jan grant, ILRT, University of Bristol. http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/ Tel +44(0)117 9287163 Fax +44 (0)117 9287112 RFC822 jan.grant@bris.ac.uk If it's broken really badly - don't fix it either. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message