sm-sorcery AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Discussion of Sorcery related topics
List archive
- From: Arwed von Merkatz <v.merkatz AT gmx.net>
- To: sm-sorcery AT lists.ibiblio.org
- Subject: Re: [SM-Sorcery]Static base spells
- Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 12:49:07 +0100
Ok, it's not as bad as i thought, i just compiled a static bash and
checked it. Since static linking doesn't include the libc, it's mostly
ncurses and readline that every static bash loads itself. That takes
about 100k more memory per bash on my system.
On Fri, Nov 29, 2002 at 12:32:07PM +0100, Arwed von Merkatz wrote:
> If i'm not mistaken, if the apps are statically linked, every app loads
> it's own version of the libs, which would lead to much more memory
> usage.
>
> On Fri, Nov 29, 2002 at 04:16:19AM -0500, Dufflebunk wrote:
> > What would be the advantage of having two copies of bzip over just one
> > static copy?
> >
> > On Fri, 2002-11-29 at 03:01, Andrew wrote:
> > > one alternative may be to have an alternative set of 'backup' or 'safe'
> > > utils. Sorcery could use those if a spell (like glibc) has the
> > > "USE_SAFE"
> > > variable set or something. Then you can have your nice dynamic
> > > executables
> > > the rest of the time.
> _______________________________________________
> SM-Sorcery mailing list
> SM-Sorcery AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/sm-sorcery
>
>
-
[SM-Sorcery]Static base spells,
Dufflebunk, 11/28/2002
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery]Static base spells,
Arwed von Merkatz, 11/29/2002
- Re: [SM-Sorcery]Static base spells, Dufflebunk, 11/29/2002
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery]Static base spells,
M.L., 11/29/2002
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery]Static base spells,
Dufflebunk, 11/29/2002
- Re: [SM-Sorcery]Static base spells, M.L., 11/29/2002
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery]Static base spells,
Dufflebunk, 11/29/2002
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery]Static base spells,
Andrew, 11/29/2002
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery]Static base spells,
Dufflebunk, 11/29/2002
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery]Static base spells,
Arwed von Merkatz, 11/29/2002
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery]Static base spells,
Arwed von Merkatz, 11/29/2002
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery]Static base spells,
Julian v. Bock, 11/29/2002
- Re: [SM-Sorcery]Static base spells, Arwed von Merkatz, 11/29/2002
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery]Static base spells,
Julian v. Bock, 11/29/2002
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery]Static base spells,
Arwed von Merkatz, 11/29/2002
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery]Static base spells,
Andrew, 11/29/2002
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery]Static base spells,
Dufflebunk, 11/29/2002
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery]Static base spells,
Andrew, 11/29/2002
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery]Static base spells,
Sergey A. Lipnevich, 11/29/2002
- Re: [SM-Sorcery]Static base spells, Andrew, 11/29/2002
- Re: [SM-Sorcery]Static base spells, Dufflebunk, 11/29/2002
- Re: [SM-Sorcery]Static base spells, Andrew, 11/29/2002
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery]Static base spells,
Sergey A. Lipnevich, 11/29/2002
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery]Static base spells,
Andrew, 11/29/2002
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery]Static base spells,
Dufflebunk, 11/29/2002
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery]Static base spells,
Arwed von Merkatz, 11/29/2002
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery]Static base spells,
Dufflebunk, 11/29/2002
- Re: [SM-Sorcery]Static base spells, Sergey A. Lipnevich, 11/29/2002
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery]Static base spells,
Arwed von Merkatz, 11/29/2002
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.