Jason Thorpe wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 09 Feb 1999 19:13:03 +0100
>  Guenther Grau <Guenther.Grau@bk.bosch.de> wrote:
>  > libcc1 NOT libc
> 
> Yes, I know libcc1 NOT libc.

Good. I just wanted to make this clear right from the start as the
last discussion on this was mainly based on this misunderstanding.

>  > How much disk space are you going to save? I think you'll only save the
>  > diskspace for each language you have a compiler for, right?
> 
> Right, and by default, we install 4:
[...]
> Here's my m68k compiler backend.  Note the statically-linked cc1.bak:
> 
> -r-xr-xr-x  1 root  wheel  1105920 May  4  1997 cc1.bak*
> 
> -r-xr-xr-x  1 root  wheel   212992 Feb  3 11:33 cc1*
> -r-xr-xr-x  1 root  wheel   286720 Feb  3 12:20 cc1obj*
> -r-xr-xr-x  1 root  wheel   688128 Feb  3 12:07 cc1plus*
> -r-xr-xr-x  1 root  wheel   630784 Feb  3 12:56 f771*
> 
> -r--r--r--  1 root  wheel  1453568 Feb  3 11:23 libcc1.so.1.1

Assuming the other compilers also grow by about 1 MB, and subtracting
the size of libcc1.so, this will grow the amount of hd space needed
to about 2.5 MB.

With the prices of hard disk space having dropped so dramatically, 2.5
MB
won't hurt systems which can use IDE/SCSI disks. Only older platforms 
which cannot use these might have a problem with this.

I cannot remember if Todd presented any numbers on how much the gain
in compile time was not using the shared lib. We should wait
until someone comes up with real numbers and compare this with the
additional hd space needed. Todd, anyone else? Different platforms?

One conclusion might probably be to make this behaviour platform
dependend
and/or easily turned on/off. How about this?

> Consider VAX users who can only put e.g. RD54s on their systems.  Shared
> libraries was a BIG DEAL for the VAX port for very pragmatic reasons.

I definitely agree with this! But it's not like Todd nuked shared lib
support
in general. It's just for libcc1 which is only used by the 4 compilers
you
mention above. What did people with a VAX do, before we had shared libs?
Not run NetBSD on their VAX at all? Use NFS?

> No.  Todd watned to eliminate the run-time cost of shared libraries, instead
> trading space.  He, and any other NetBSD user, have that option by building
> their systems statically.

This is correct and I agree with this. IMHO, let's find out the speed
gain first
and then talk about it again? I know we are all against bloat, but we
also want speed :-)

  Guenther