From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from fw.softwell.se ([193.15.236.45]) by hawkwind.utcs.utoronto.ca with SMTP id <25158>; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 15:31:45 -0500
Received: from trillian.softwell.se (IDENT:bengt@trillian.softwell.se [192.42.172.11])
	by fw.softwell.se (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA11253;
	Fri, 14 Jan 2000 12:09:36 +0100
Received: (from bengt@localhost)
	by trillian.softwell.se (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA30516;
	Fri, 14 Jan 2000 12:09:36 +0100
From:	Bengt Kleberg <bengt@softwell.se>
Message-Id: <200001141109.MAA30516@trillian.softwell.se>
To:	haahr@jivetech.com, tjg@star.le.ac.uk
Subject: Re: Dynamically loading readline on demand (was Re: rc futures)
Cc:	rc@hawkwind.utcs.toronto.edu
Date:	Fri, 14 Jan 2000 06:11:05 -0500

> From: Paul Haahr <haahr@jivetech.com>

> > Tim Goodwin wrote

> > Here are the results I got on my 200MHz Linux PC (us = microseconds).
 
> >     rc.static      744us
> >     rc.rl.static   865us
> >     rc.dynamic    1071us
> >     rc.rl.dynamic 1442us

> A ~30% performance
> penaly doesn't seem like that much if it's saving enough by sharing the
> library with other clients.

I would disagree here. I start rc scripts from wily all the time. They are really short
and my SS2 needs all the help it can get to make things faster.

Ofcourse, I do not use readline and run the scripts in sequence, so the memory savings would 
not be great (or?, what sizes accompany the rc.static, rc.dynamic, xxx)

> bloat in libraries is probably a good thing

Yes, I agree here. But a shell is special, (my usage of rc is special :-) it is started lots of times, finnishes
quickly and is not run many times in parallell.


Best Wishes, Bengt
===============================================================
Everything aforementioned should be regarded as totally private
opinions, and nothing else. bengt@softwell.se
``His great strength is that he is uncompromising. It would make
him physically ill to think of programming in C++.''