Re: Q: shared libraries

In <wrn2vd1sa4.fsf@tglobe3.tollpost.no> ogj@tglobe3.tollpost.no (M-Xyvind Gjerstad) worte: : > In <wrrakr0y56.fsf@tglobe3.tollpost.no> ogj@tglobe3.tollpost.no : > (M-Xyvind Gjerstad) wrote: : > : Well, I have read articles claiming that static versions of these programs : > : in fact tend to reduce overall memory consumption due to shared text. And : > : because an application only will have the data it is actually _using_ from : > : its libraries. : > : > I get confused. Could you elaborate those article_s_ ? : : Article <4giao2$95s@server05.icaen.uiowa.edu> on comp.sys.hp.hpux . : It is posted by Doug Siebert. If you can't find this article I may : ask for his permission to repost the article here. I find his article from deja news. I think it is reasonable and already covered by my article <5945qm$69p@knot.queensu.ca>. I.e. when the application is small in size(even with static linking), the dynamic loading and page sharing may cost more than it save. Remember, HP/UX 9.x doesn't support paging but swaping, thus, this extra cost will be more significant on it. For real large commerical application and for a paging system(like HP/UX 10.x which uses mmap()'s page based rather than segment based copy on write to reduce the page consumption problem of data segment mentioned by Doug Siebert), you will expect the shared pages will save more. -g