From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 23:02:55 -0400 From: Dan Cross To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu> Subject: Re: [9fans] Install from CD fails Message-ID: <20060419030255.GW9931@augusta.math.psu.edu> References: <775b8d190604181055g7eb9e200ncbf546291a0e098e@mail.gmail.com> <20060418210456.GT9931@augusta.math.psu.edu> <3e1162e60604181424m554a5a1et43ad7398c6cea2df@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3e1162e60604181424m554a5a1et43ad7398c6cea2df@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Topicbox-Message-UUID: 3e43bf8a-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On Tue, Apr 18, 2006 at 02:24:49PM -0700, David Leimbach wrote: > It certainly wouldn't have any effect on the context switch itself > necessarily. But it might have an effect on page faults for code > that's loaded dynamically and the swapping that would occur while > freeing up free memory to load multiple copies of the same code or > not. (though it's been said over and over again that physical memory > savings of dynamic libraries rarely happens in practice.) Well, this is Unix, so text segments are shared anyway. The point is, you're right: it wouldn't have an effect on the context switch itself. The person in question was just plain wrong. I tried to explain it to him, and for a second he gave me that ``deer in the headlights'' blank stare of non-comprehension, and then just went back to saying, ``write, so it saves on the context switch....'' The guy was senior to me, so we went with his idea, which introduced a new level of complexity that was just ridiculous. Of course, this was on a project written in C++ where each *class* was in it's own directory. That is, the headers were in a single directory, and the ``.cpp'' (heaven forbide we should use .cc as the extension for our C++ source files, since, you know, most of the guys had a Windows background) were each in their own directory. Make was utterly defeated. Ugh. - Dan C.