On Mon, 13 Nov 2006, Tom Russo wrote: > Yep. Now that you point that out I'm seeing pretty much the same thing on > FreeBSD. In fact, I also see the same thing you're seeing in that the > dynamically linked version is slightly larger than the static-linked version. > > This is a little strange, as one of the points of shared libraries is to > reduce executable size. But I guess that shapelib functions are just so > small that the overhead for handling the shared libraries is big enough > to erase the savings.
Yea. I did this on my laptop and the statically-linked version was smaller. The routines are _very_ small so I think you figured it out. > I still stand by the points I made about bloating the code base and statically > linking too many libraries (especially big ones). But perhaps it is OK to > use the static linked shapelib unless you need shapelib for something other > than xastir (e.g. GPSMAN/gpsmanshp), at which point you need to install > shapelib as a shared library anyway. That's exactly how I'm thinking of it. Those that only need Xastir/Shapelib would most likely choose not to install the separate library. It only make sense from a keep-it-simple perspective. Thanks for your work on getting that integrated in! It's pretty seamless and I think a lot of people will benefit from it. -- Curt, WE7U. APRS Client Comparisons: http://www.eskimo.com/~archer "Lotto: A tax on people who are bad at math." -- unknown "Windows: Microsoft's tax on computer illiterates." -- WE7U "The world DOES revolve around me: I picked the coordinate system!" _______________________________________________ Xastir mailing list Xastir@xastir.org http://lists.xastir.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xastir