Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 23:10:17 +0200 (MET DST) From: Wilko Bulte <wilko@yedi.iaf.nl> To: andrew@zeta.org.au (Andrew Reilly) Cc: toor@dyson.iquest.net, perlsta@sunyit.edu, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: shared libraries? Message-ID: <199708282110.XAA02694@yedi.iaf.nl> In-Reply-To: <199708280638.QAA18886@gurney.reilly.home> from "Andrew Reilly" at Aug 28, 97 04:38:48 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
As Andrew Reilly wrote... > On 28 Aug, John S. Dyson wrote: > > 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): > [list elided] [del] > Has anyone considered building a shared library use-analysis > tool, to attempt to optimise the ordering of objects within > the various shared libraries, so that the "most used" core > of modules were concatenated, probably at the front, with > less commonly used functions falling to the tail, so they > would mostly not be paged in? I think the SVR3 Unix libc_s was built using a reordering process like this. _ ____________________________________________________________________ | / o / / _ Bulte email: wilko@yedi.iaf.nl http://www.tcja.nl/~wilko |/|/ / / /( (_) Arnhem, The Netherlands - Do, or do not. There is no 'try' ----------------------------------------------------------------------Yoda
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199708282110.XAA02694>