> So.. forking a dynamic sh is roughly 40% more expensive than > forking a static copy of sh. This is embarrassing. read the original paper carefully: http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/cache/papers/cs/3066/http:zSzzSzswt-www.informatik.uni-hamburg.dezSz~1friedrizSzsvzSzreferenceszSzShared_Libraries_In_Sun_OS.pdf/gingell87shared.pdf it's conclusions state that they are slower. this was the _original paper_ that announced the damn things.Received on Mon Nov 24 2003 - 14:26:02 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:37:30 UTC