Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!ccut!wnoc-tyo-news!cs.titech!titccy.cc.titech!necom830!mohta
From: mohta@necom830.cc.titech.ac.jp (Masataka Ohta)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: Shared libraries (was Re: Window system bashing (was Re: X11 bashing))
Message-ID: <135@titccy.cc.titech.ac.jp>
Date: 23 Apr 91 11:13:05 GMT
References: <1991Apr19.005739.2321@servalan.uucp>
Sender: news@titccy.cc.titech.ac.jp
Organization: Tokyo Institute of Technology
Lines: 28

In article <1991Apr19.005739.2321@servalan.uucp>
	rmtodd@servalan.uucp (Richard Todd) writes:

>>>mere /lib/X11.a consumes 3.3MB of virtual (and often real, as libraries
>>>tends to be scattered) memory.

> 3.3 MEG???  That seems to me to be *way* out of line with what I see.

Sorry, it was my mistake to have overestimated memory consumption of
shared libraries.

>That means that worst case, Xlib will take up ~120K of memory.  That's 
>*120K*, not 3.3M.  You're off by a factor of 30.

On NWS3860, total code size of libX11.a is about 160K. about 1/20 of
its file size.

But, this means, shared library is not so good, because statically linked
binary is small enough (1/20).

>And even leaving aside memory 
>considerations, compiling the entire X11R4 core client distribution with
>shared libraries saved over 4M in disk space,

4M is small compared to the size of while X11R4 core. Moreover, binaries can
be shared through network.

						Masataka Ohta