3 ms·
Disk space might be a lot cheaper but RAM is still expensive. If you have a dozen apps running that are statically linked to libc then you have dozen copies of
by snarfy 9y ago
Disk space might be a lot cheaper but RAM is still expensive. If you have a dozen apps running that are statically linked to libc then you have dozen copies of libc in memory. If you have a dozen apps that are dynamically linked to libc, they all get a single copy-on-write version of the same libc. This results in the library code getting shared while library data gets copied.
- jacquesm 9y agoThat's true, but there would be 100's or even 1000's of copies of that stuff on your harddrive and with drives being a lot smaller that was a real problem. RAM was always expensive so that's a valid point. There used to be such a thing as an optimizing linker that would throw out all library code that could not be reached.