Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!kddlab!cs.titech!titccy.cc.titech!necom830!mohta
From: mohta@necom830.cc.titech.ac.jp (Masataka Ohta)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.internals
Subject: Re: Fundamental defect of the concept of shared libraries
Keywords: ISC i386 shared libraries
Message-ID: <282@titccy.cc.titech.ac.jp>
Date: 4 Jun 91 03:11:23 GMT
References: <265@titccy.cc.titech.ac.jp> <8144@auspex.auspex.com> <276@titccy.cc.titech.ac.jp> <8167@auspex.auspex.com>
Sender: news@titccy.cc.titech.ac.jp
Organization: Tokyo Institute of Technology
Lines: 22

In article <8167@auspex.auspex.com> guy@auspex.auspex.com (Guy Harris) writes:

>>:Yes, of course. Bnews is the real example showing significance of call
>>:overhead.

>>I cited B news as the real example showing significance of call overhead.
>
>Umm, if call overhead is significant, inlining is a win, right?

I don't care. It has nothing to do with the current discussion. You may
post whatever you believe, but, don't distort what I said.

>>>There are two separate issues here, which you're mixing together:

>>I am not mixing them.
>
>Yes, you're continuing to mix them.  See below.

No. And, again, these points have nothing to do with the current discussion
on shared libraries.

							Masataka Ohta