On 4/23/06, Jim Gettys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It does also beg the question of whether the current Linux shared > library scheme is a good one; some of the other ones don't have that > overhead, as the mail thread points out.
That's not quite true. In the no-rebase case Windows PE is pretty efficient, but, that only works because most DLLs are either: a) Provided by Microsoft, so, their locations are known ahead of time and fixed. b) Provided by the application itself, so, their locations can be chosen not to conflict with the first set The Linux model is not so organised, we just have this big pool of libraries which come and go as they please. Pretty much every app will have its own combination. However when there ARE conflicts with PE, it rapidly becomes less efficient, as the DLL has to be in-place binary edited which usually makes the whole thing unsharable. So it's a cost thing .... PE is more efficient in the best case, much less efficient in the worst case, and ELF sits somewhere inbetween all the time. The real problems with ELF are speed and reliability related rather than memory usage related - its global search scope not only makes it impossible to guarantee reliablity of a deployed program but slows things down significantly (which is why prelink was developed ....) thanks -mike -- olpc-software mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/olpc-software
