Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!iuvax!cica!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!agate!darkstar!saturn.ucsc.edu!keller
From: keller@saturn.ucsc.edu (Jeffrey M. Keller)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Speed costs (Re: MWC's Coherent - A Lemon...)
Message-ID: <4058@darkstar.ucsc.edu>
Date: 4 Jun 90 23:17:34 GMT
References: <27415@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> <4042@darkstar.ucsc.edu> <1990Jun4.134439.27540@cs.rochester.edu>
Sender: usenet@darkstar.ucsc.edu
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz
Lines: 26

In article <1990Jun4.134439.27540@cs.rochester.edu> quiroz@lemon.cs.rochester.edu (Cesar Quiroz) writes:
[included posting deleted]
>
>I am sure the poster had a better reason to think that 1.3 amounts
>to less than 0.376, beyond his approval or not of shared libraries.
>It would be a bad time for Computer Science and Engineering if
>wishful thinking became an accepted style of argumentation.
>-- 
>                                      Cesar Augusto Quiroz Gonzalez
>                                      Department of Computer Science
>                                      University of Rochester
>                                      Rochester,  NY 14627

Yes, he did have a reason to think that, as well as an guess as to why
the dynamically linked binary is larger.  With shared libraries and
virtual memory, there's no need to worry about granularity in the
libraries -- you simply link in the whole thing, and page in on demand
the parts you're actually using.  Furthermore, these parts may already
be in physical memory, if some other program is using them.  This explains,
simultaneously, both why the dynamically linked version appears larger
than the statically linked one, and how it might still be effectively
smaller.
--
Jeff Keller           keller@saturn.ucsc.edu           (408)425-5416
THIS LIFE IS A TEST.  IT IS ONLY A TEST.   HAD THIS BEEN A REAL LIFE,
YOU WOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN INSTRUCTIONS ON WHERE TO GO AND WHAT TO DO.