[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Shared Libraries?
- To: qmail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: Shared Libraries?
- From: Kyle Wheeler <kyle-qmail@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2008 20:11:27 -0600
- Comment: DomainKeys? See http://domainkeys.sourceforge.net/
- Delivered-to: de5-qmail@sws5.ornl.gov
- Delivered-to: mailing list qmail@list.cr.yp.to
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=memoryhole.net; h=date: from:to:subject:message-id:references:mime-version:content-type: in-reply-to; q=dns/txt; s=default; bh=YyaXhf+exjO0Zg+qen4BI5UweM k=; b=VeImDBCVbKWcvwkJz4cWGMNIbBWvFzX4mVVn9k+6+GW5w4PxBMjBvfP7R1 OFyFnetADoLLvRi1ba1xarirVDrirQPqBRoRzLn6wROVw9BsHD5Y1Kpz1KKP4Nx8 wzpxbDYFFYl3XajbRbhu8Hw+sUxWSGL+qGJiskEXqpED9bwdU=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=memoryhole.net; b=T+kFLD5iFRgpeWykjBDz4ypjKUBfxq6e4NDnd8xz22GZP3fThYp9D6onroNG8u2fhmmoNx47uzgf398ReZj7Aju8pBL4+KbzD89x5FGnzubvBBY+Sa3fYpuVjLDy8aQdgnLWiLtp/Q/4XWCxUiEL2SM8Twnp2eVl244tvC37mxY=; h=Received:Received:Date:From:To:Subject:Message-ID:Mail-Followup-To:References:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To:User-Agent;
- In-reply-to: <ebf5eb170802011554w4c8b01d5y1c4d3a2d184333ca@mail.gmail.com>
- Mail-followup-to: qmail@list.cr.yp.to
- Mailing-list: contact qmail-help@list.cr.yp.to; run by ezmlm
- References: <ebf5eb170801311401vbd01dd2x4710aacc909a79fd@mail.gmail.com> <d791b8790802011520u3d9e6509hbcb087b798cf0f67@mail.gmail.com> <ebf5eb170802011554w4c8b01d5y1c4d3a2d184333ca@mail.gmail.com>
- User-agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2008-01-14)
On Friday, February 1 at 05:54 PM, quoth Mark Johnson:
On Feb 1, 2008 5:20 PM, Matthew Dempsky <matthew@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
There was no standard for building shared libraries in 1996. POSIX
still does not give one.
There's my Linux bias showing. I've never been without them. Not
everybody had them back in '96. Fast forwarding 12 years, is
anybody running qmail et all on a platform with no shared library
support? Or a platform that GNU Libtool doesn't support (I suppose
that's another dirty word on this list)?
Can anybody think of a *technical* reason that would make abstracting
the common bits out into a shared library a bad idea?
Generally, statically linked programs load faster than non-statically
linked programs (see here for a demonstration:
http://bulk.fefe.de/scalability/). Granted, you can still make static
common libraries, but at that point all you're doing is making the
code more complex without any real benefit---how often does the code
in qmail.c change, after all.
~Kyle
--
One of the world's greatest problems is the impossibility of any
person searching for the truth on any subject when they believe they
already have it.
-- Dave Wilbur
Attachment:
pgp00001.pgp
Description: PGP signature