Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!kithrup!sef From: sef@kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan) Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards Subject: Re: Shared libraries (was Re: Window system bashing (was Re: X11 bashing)) Message-ID: <1991Apr29.025800.3108@kithrup.COM> Date: 29 Apr 91 02:58:00 GMT References: <1991Apr25.175847.21613@kithrup.COM> <73761@brunix.UUCP> Organization: Kithrup Enterprises, Ltd. Lines: 22 In article <73761@brunix.UUCP> cgy@cs.brown.edu (Curtis Yarvin) writes: >In article bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes: >>Try running some job using shared and statically linked libraries on >>various systems. I've seen from 5-10% to 75% performance degradations >>(granted the last was odd enough to look into, but it was there.) >Statically linked shared libraries should incur little or no performance hit. On a '386 running SCO UNIX (or xenix, for that matter), a call to a shared library function one jump in addition to the normal call. Thus, there is a *very* slight performance hit. I don't necessarily agree that most of libc should be shared. libX, on the other hand, as well as the toolkit libraries, would be a *very* good thing to share, for many reasons; the increase in execution time is offset far more than enough by the savings in paging, physical memory, and disk space used. -- Sean Eric Fagan | "I made the universe, but please don't blame me for it; sef@kithrup.COM | I had a bellyache at the time." -----------------+ -- The Turtle (Stephen King, _It_) Any opinions expressed are my own, and generally unpopular with others.