Lars Wirzenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I may be completely wrong here, but as far as I understand, ld turns > -lfoo into /usr/lib/libfoo.a and then uses that if it can find it. It > might look into some other directories as well, and it might fill in foo > into some other patterns than "lib%s.a", but basically that is it. It > does not scan the /usr/lib directory, it merely looks up a filename it > knows already.
Right, and "open" is O(n) on just about every system. If that's not true on ext2, then that's good news, and I'm surprised. > With modern filesystems, the kernel also does not need to read through > the entires /usr/lib directory listing: modern filesystems user B-trees > or other ways to speed up filename lookups. O(log n), that is, or even > approximately O(1) if a good hash is used. Actually, even systems as old as ITS used better than O(n) directories. It's Unix that has historically stunk. It's not a modern/old thing, it's a Just Do It thing. Which Linux filesystems have better than O(n) performance on open? Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
