On 4/18/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In the limiting case, where every binary needs a different version of
> the shared library, you are back where we are today with Plan 9's statically
> linked binaries, so why bother even thinking about it.

But by that same logic quicksort algorithms tend towards O(N^2) when
data is already sorted, so why use them ever either?  (though I wonder
how often quicksort is really rolled out in production... also... I
think I just defeated my own argument.)

Dave


>
> On Tue Apr 18 14:55:41 EDT 2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Don't shared libraries also typically provide memory savings?  One
> > >> version of your c library "resident" for all VM spaces to map?
> > >>
> >
> > that's often quoted as a consequence, but in practice,
> > not that i've seen in ...  what is it now?  ...  at least six or
> > seven different systems.  i think the trouble is that to get savings
> > that make the pain worthwhile you still need various forms of
> > discipline, but with shared libraries, people are even less concerned.
> > and RSS continues up.
> >
> > another is bug fixing at a stroke, but it also allows
> > bug and trapdoor introduction at a stroke.
>

Reply via email to