Return to BSD News archive
Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!constellation!convex!convex!cs.utexas.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!gumby!yale!yale.edu!noc.near.net!news.delphi.com!usenet From: John Dyson <dysonj@delphi.com> Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.misc Subject: Re: Shared Library Status ? Date: Fri, 11 Mar 94 20:08:26 -0500 Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) Lines: 14 Message-ID: <ZS-to+C.dysonj@delphi.com> References: <JKH.94Mar5233255@whisker.hubbard.ie> <hastyCM9r6q.KFB@netcom.com> <2lgb5g$11gc@introl.introl.com> <2lik9d$f8h@pdq.coe.montana.edu> <2lqhaf$65l@introl.introl.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: delphi.com X-To: Tim Chase <tim@introl.com> Tim Chase <tim@introl.com> writes: >In summary, there doesn't seem to be much reason to avoid using shared >libs under current version of NetBSD and, presumably, FreeBSD (they use >the same implementation, don't they?). I think that we use the same scheme -- but FreeBSD does not need to fault the pages in the shared library into the process address space. They are pre-loaded in a highly optimized scheme. Any mmaped segment is immediately in the process address space -- minimizing the overhead of vm_fault. John dyson@implode.root.com