Framework size limits
Framework size limits
- Subject: Framework size limits
- From: Glen Low <email@hidden>
- Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2004 19:28:26 +0800
Dear All,
The more I investigate the Mach-O dynamic loading system, the more
impressed I get.
For example, even though a dylib may be fairly large, due to lazy
linking only the individual modules are brought into memory,
effectively simulating lots of small DLL's on some other architectures.
Now this fact plus the penalty you get linking Mach-O from different
executables (having to dispatch through a stub), seems to encourage
large dylibs.
So the question is: are there any factors encouraging smaller dylibs?
For example, why isn't Mac OS X not just a single giant dylib? And if
I'm shipping a framework or dylib, why would I want to ship several
dylibs at all, instead of one giant one?
Cheers, Glen Low
---
pixelglow software | simply brilliant stuff
www.pixelglow.com
P.S. Does the fact that dylibs are memory mapped to a specific spot
(say because of prebinding) and individual modules of the dylib are
lazily loaded, imply that the memory used is "swiss-cheesed"? (Not that
it matters much, I suppose, since that memory can't be used by apps.)
_______________________________________________
xcode-users mailing list | email@hidden
Help/Unsubscribe/Archives: http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/xcode-users
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.