Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 00:07:29 EST-10EDT,10,-1,0,7200,3,-1,0,7200,3600 Subject: [Ux2bs_Archive] No. 395 ************************************************** Saturday 29 January 2005 Number 395 ************************************************** Subjects for today 1 Re: Re: [UnixOS2] zlib : Michael Zolk **= Email 1 ==========================** Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2005 13:04:20 +0100 From: Michael Zolk Subject: Re: Re: [UnixOS2] zlib On Sun, Jan 23, 2005 at 02:15:04PM -0800, Dave Yeo wrote: > I'm also somewhat in conflict wether we should even go the DLL route. > DLLs are nice for saving disk space but that doesn't seem to be a > problem anymore. Static libs can actually save memory (at least in the > common arena) as the lib is in the private process space if I > understand correctly. For a static lib configure works fine if shm is > not installed. Probally shouldn't use shm here as it is limited to 4 > MBs and am not sure how much ZLIB uses. On systems wiht shm installed > the configure script most likely needs to be hacked a bit to not try to > load shm. (it only tests for the header and we also need the dll > loaded) I'm not sure if I understand you correctly here - do you suggest to link all apps statically that use zlib? This would be very inconvenient: every time zlib is updated all of those apps would have to be tracked down and recompiled... Michael _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs