shared lib ...

[Richard Foulk]

There have been several different scripts posted lately that
automate the process or compiling and linking programs with
the shared library.  The more recent ones extract some routines
that weren't defined in the shared lib and link them separately
to keep the resultant binaries as small as possible.

My question is; why not find the missing routines within the
shared library and add the to your shlib.ifile?  Since most
of the missing routines are called from other routines that
are listed in shlib.ifile then they must be in there.  (_doprnt,
for instance is at tbase+0x18a34.)

I know that the supported routines are all vectored through a
jump table at the beginning of the library that helps keep things
neat and portable.  But is that really an issue?  It's not like
we're going to have to worry about upgrading to a newer version
of Unix or anything.

What are the other concerns?  Or are the gains too small to
worry about?

Actually, I'd like to hang the curses library on the end of
the shared library -- it's so enormous it would save all kinds
of disk space, and loading time.  (Curses is about 10 times
as large as a few versions ago.)


Richard Foulk		...{vortex,ihnp4,spl1}!islenet!richard
Honolulu, Hawaii
-- 
Richard Foulk		...{vortex,ihnp4,spl1}!islenet!richard
Honolulu, Hawaii