Re: [MiNT] Software packaging (was: opkg / coldmint)

[p.slegg@scubadivers.co.uk]

>---- Original Message ----
>From: Eero Tamminen <oak@helsinkinet.fi>
>To: mint@lists.fishpool.fi
>Sent: Sun, Feb 17, 2013, 11:38 PM
>Subject: Re: [MiNT] Software packaging (was: opkg / coldmint)
>
>Hi,
>
>On maanantai 18 helmikuu 2013, Peter Slegg wrote:
>> On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 23:19:55 , Eero Tamminen <oak@helsinkinet.fi> wrote:
>> > On sunnuntai 17 helmikuu 2013, Helmut Karlowski wrote:
>> > >> I can't see many instances of situations were users would be running
>> > >> several apps that need the same lib so the memory used would not be
>> > >> important.
>> > > 
>> > > Well, almost all would use the mintlib, no?
>> > 
>> > Any normal GCC compiled app would use mintlib, and GUI ones would
>> > also use GEMlib.  That's 0.9MB + 0.2MB (for their *.a files
>> > in Sparemint).
>> 
>> So the memory usage of static versus the dynamic solution would be the
>> same and disk usage would be reduced (not a major issue).
>
>Without on-demand file paging (which needs VM), the dynamic solution
>would actually use more memory because you get the whole library into
>memory, not just the parts used by the application (as would be the case
>both with on-demand file paging and static linking).

I forgot that it would link the whole lib unless the dynamic linker was
very clever and could in some way link just the bits it needs, though this
might require portions to be relocated which is where it gets complicated.

http://compilers.iecc.com/comparch/article/02-06-017

Peter