> Now that I think of it, the increased memory footprint of a glibc system
> probably is because some of the 'standard' programs aren't available in
> glibc format yet (nutscrape, x11amp, etc). This causes (large) chunks
> of library code to be loaded twice. Once from libc5 and once from libc6.
> This isn't much of a problem, but it just gives more code (cache)
> usage...
Yep, this is it exactly. However it's probably something like 2MB or
something since 75% of my system is now based on glibc2 - there are still
about 200-odd binaries that still needs libc5. I aim to get as much of
these onto glibc2 as possible (apart from certain programs that cannot use
glibc2 either because they are binaries only (i.e Netscape/StarOffice
3.1), or because the code will not compile with glibc2)
I'm making the move to glibc2 for many reasons, otherwise I wouldn't have
bothered. Only two weeks ago my system was 100% libc5. Not bad, eh!
Cheers,
Alex
-- /\_/\ Legalise cannabis now! ( o.o ) Smoke some cannabis today! > ^ < Peace, Love, Unity and Respect to all.http://www.tahallah.demon.co.uk
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu