Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 14:14:35 +0200 (IST)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
To: "Salvador Eduardo Tropea (SET)" <salvador AT inti DOT edu DOT ar>
cc: Peter Palotas <blizzar AT hem1 DOT passagen DOT se>, djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: ELF-binary format object file?
In-Reply-To: <m0xQsvt-000S1fC@inti.gov.ar>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.971102141416.11098D-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Precedence: bulk


On Thu, 30 Oct 1997, Salvador Eduardo Tropea (SET) wrote:

> Yes, gcc (ld to be more exact) can generated dynamically linked
> libraries, they are much more powerful than the (dead brain) M$ DLL
> idea.
> This helps in too aspects: saves disk space and saves memory.

This was also discussed a lot.  To put the advantages in perspective,
I'd like to point out that shared libraries have two DISadvantages:

       - The shared library includes ALL of libc, so if the loader
         loads it in its entirety, you actually *waste* memory (since
         it's a rare program that uses all of the libc).

       - There's a problem with old/incompatible shared libraries,
         especially in DJGPP where different modules/programs are
         donated/built by different people.  For example, recall that
         many people patch their libraries to fix bugs and add
         features, then distribute programs they build with these
         patched libraries.  This requires in practice that every
         executable is distributed with its own shared library,
         otherwise you risk that it will not work on somebody's
         machine.  Pretty soon your disk is full with different
         versions of the library, and you end up *wasting* disk
         storage.