Olivier Chapuis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Fri, Mar 29, 2002 at 11:07:19AM -0500, Dan Espen wrote: > > Olivier Chapuis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Hello, > > > > > > At present time the fvwm lib is used in a totally static way. > > > Moreover, an external module should be compiled inside the fvwm > > > source tree to take advantage of the libs. > > ... > > > Any way > > > I do not know a lot of things on memory management (any good > > > doc and better tool than top and free?). > > ... > > > So the difference is not big when you really use fvwm. > > > > > > So now the big question: should I finish the libtoolization of fvwm > > > and commit the change? > > > > It doesn't seem to be buying us much. > > > Hum, sorry, what do you mean exactly? It seems to me that you say > something like ... "No" o:) but I am not sure.
No, I don't mean "no". I don't know if I read your data correctly, but it didn't look like it showed a benefit. I only mentioned that to make sure I was reading all those numbers correctly. The reason I posted was to point out that you could get more detailed data. Jason showed how to do that on Linux. Why would you want to do this if there's no benefit? Still, if you want to, I won't say no. Why? 1. Because, in principle, I like shared libraries. 2. If anyone doesn't like them, they can disable them. -- Dan Espen E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 444 Hoes Lane Room RRC 1C-214 Phone: (732) 699-5570 Piscataway, NJ 08854 -- Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL:http://www.fvwm.org/>. To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm-workers" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To report problems, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
