On 18-Mar-98 Chuck Cranor wrote:

> so i would say that the shared library system is working "as expected" and i 
> believe we can discount the GNU tools as contributing factors in the process
> memory usage.

Except maybe for those 7 bss pages (28K) you attribute to ld.so.  I'm having a
hard time deducing what those pages are filled with, considering how tiny my
test program is and how few links it entails.

I already know that crt0.o and ld.so don't use mmap() in the best possible
manner, so I wouldn't be too surprised at some leakage there.

And although from your test, code sharing appears to work "as expected" with
UVM, we don't really know about Mach yet.


----------------------------------
E-Mail: jiho@mail.c-zone.net
Date: 19-Mar-98
Time: 18:31:34

This message was sent by XFMail
----------------------------------