On Mon, 25 Jan 1999, Anders Magnusson wrote:

> > 
> > As for memory shartage, having shared libraries really don't help you at
> > all. Actually, you'll likely loose some.
> > 
> > The libraries are shared on disk, not in memory.
> > It will do wonders for disk space, though...
> > 
> > I'm not sure under which circumstances code is shared under current BSD.
> > Someone please enlighten me. I'm still at the old sticky-bit stadium...
> > 
> You sure is! 

:-)

> Shared libraries is a real wonder for memory usage. All contents in a
> shared library is shared among all processes that uses it. There will
> for example be only one instance of libc in memory. (except for
> writable data, of course :-)
> There would be no point of having shared libraries if they weren't shared :-)

Well, diskspace alone would be a *big* argument...

But how does NetBSD realize that the libc-part can be shared? The programs
starts, loads in the shared part with dload (or what it's called), but
that goes into you own address space. And this part of address space is
then somehow registered for content by NetBSD, or what? (Right?)

	Johnny

Johnny Billquist                  || "I'm on a bus
                                  ||  on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt@update.uu.se           ||  Reading murder books
pdp is alive!                     ||  tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol