From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <3e1162e60604181421o5c0ec674i7c68a7431dcd51a8@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 14:21:21 -0700 From: "David Leimbach" To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@cse.psu.edu> Subject: Re: [9fans] Install from CD fails In-Reply-To: <9dea1471407d3126a8dc14abeca04ee0@terzarima.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline References: <20060418210456.GT9931@augusta.math.psu.edu> <9dea1471407d3126a8dc14abeca04ee0@terzarima.net> Topicbox-Message-UUID: 3d5097ec-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On 4/18/06, Charles Forsyth wrote: > > I think shared libraries are often times misunderstood. I once knew > > someone who thought that a context switch was less expensive using > > shared libraries than without. > > many, many people apparently that think that a context switch > must necessarily be much more expensive than a function call > and return (or two) > > Doesn't a lot of that depend on how you define a context? :-)