Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site pur-ee.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!davy
From: davy@pur-ee.UUCP (Dave Curry)
Newsgroups: net.unix
Subject: Re: Shells, features and interaction
Message-ID: <3566@pur-ee.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 12-Dec-85 07:52:14 EST
Article-I.D.: pur-ee.3566
Posted: Thu Dec 12 07:52:14 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 13-Dec-85 08:43:03 EST
References: <4575@alice.UUCP> <1631@glacier.ARPA> <> <897@nmtvax.UUCP>
Reply-To: davy@pur-ee.UUCP (Dave Curry)
Organization: Electrical Engineering Department , Purdue University
Lines: 26
Summary: 

In article <897@nmtvax.UUCP> maurice@nmtvax.UUCP (Roger M. Levasseur) writes:
>  You must be forgetting about overlays then. As it is right now, csh
>*needs* the use of overlays (the 2.9bsd  version) to run. From doing
>a check on it, a size yields this:
>

This is a lie.  2.9BSD csh may need overlays, but we've got two versions
running on our Version 7 PDP-11's with no overlays.  Observe:

	41024+1104+1498 = 43626b = 0125152b

	49792+7310+3296 = 60398b = 0165756b

The first is a not very complete version, the second contains everything
except job control.  Believe it or not overlays aren't a necessity in
this world (although they do make things convenient, they make them slow
too).

>Looks like less than 64? You still need to put the stack in there as well,
>and that gets the last 8k segment of 64k (depends on the pdp type, this
>is from a nonseperate i/d pdp 23+).
>

Yup, looks like less than 64k to me.  This is a split i/d 11/70.

--Dave Curry