Compiling X apps with shared libs.

Compiling X apps with shared libs.

Post by Scott D. Heavn » Sun, 21 Feb 1993 16:35:56



        I know the shared libraries are supposed to
be the defaults for GCC 2.3.3, but what about the X11
shared libs?  I am using Xfree 1.2 to compile my
own apps, but have not yet attempted to  write an
imakefile.  Currently, I use the following line

        gcc Xapps.c -lX11 -lXt -lXmu -lXaw -lXext -letc...

but this results in some pretty huge files 500k+.  My
guess is I'm using the gcc shared libs, but not the
Xfree shared libs, but maybe not?

        The same file compiles to 90k on a sun4.

                        Scott

--
HELP! I'm being held prisoner in a .sig file factory.

 
 
 

Compiling X apps with shared libs.

Post by Arjan de V » Mon, 22 Feb 1993 02:36:29



Quote:>    gcc Xapps.c -lX11 -lXt -lXmu -lXaw -lXext -letc...

>but this results in some pretty huge files 500k+.  My
>guess is I'm using the gcc shared libs, but not the
>Xfree shared libs, but maybe not?

Make symlinks in /usr/lib to the X11 libraries:

        cd /usr/lib
        ln -s /usr/X386/lib/lib* .

Then it should work fine!

Arjan

 
 
 

Compiling X apps with shared libs.

Post by Robert Nati » Tue, 23 Feb 1993 23:28:08


I also noticed that my XFree 1.2 programs were much larger than
Xfree 1.0. I believe that this is because the symbol table included
in libc4.3 binaries is huge when you link in X things. Try stripping
your executable, and see how big it is after that. There is an option
for ld to do this too.

 
 
 

Compiling X apps with shared libs.

Post by Bill C. Rieme » Wed, 24 Feb 1993 06:00:40



Quote:

>I also noticed that my XFree 1.2 programs were much larger than
>Xfree 1.0. I believe that this is because the symbol table included
>in libc4.3 binaries is huge when you link in X things. Try stripping
>your executable, and see how big it is after that. There is an option
>for ld to do this too.

That explains why I was nolonger able to install the SLS distribution on
a single 64 Meg partition.  Even after compressing many things I don't use
regularly (including many things in the /usr/bin directory) I still found
myself short of space.  I finially had to uninstall a some packages to make
things fit.  It would be nice if the SLS distribution had all documentation
and source code other than include libraries compressed.  This way we wouldn't
find sysinstall -all termininating due to lack of diskspace.  At this point
you have to remove some of the packages  you just installed so you have enough
tmp space to compress things.  Of keep finding something new to compress before
you can install the next disk.  Obcourse you could use an extfs partition
instead, but extfs is soooo slow.

Anyways this is just food for thought.  If the person overall in charge of the
SLS distribution doesn't have time to make this change, I'm more than happy to
help.

                                      Bill

 
 
 

Compiling X apps with shared libs.

Post by Paul Gortmak » Fri, 26 Feb 1993 20:57:16



[...stuff deleted]

Quote:>you can install the next disk.  Obcourse you could use an extfs partition
>instead, but extfs is soooo slow.

Really? I'd be quite interested to see some benchmark figures for the various
filesystems that exist now. (...and I'm sure so would others!)

                                        Paul.

 
 
 

Compiling X apps with shared libs.

Post by Eric J. Schwertfeg » Sun, 28 Feb 1993 03:32:12



) Subject: extfs slow ? (was Re: Compiling X apps with shared libs)
) Date: Thu, 25 Feb 93 03:57:16 PST
) Organization: RMIT Computer Centre
)

)
) [...stuff deleted]
)
) >you can install the next disk.  Obcourse you could use an extfs partition
) >instead, but extfs is soooo slow.
)
)
) Really? I'd be quite interested to see some benchmark figures for the various
) filesystems that exist now. (...and I'm sure so would others!)
)
)                                       Paul.

I did just that, and posted the results about three weeks ago.  I got two
replies, one "good job", and one person who didn't understand that a
suggestion is more likely to fix a problem than a flame, so I didn't bother
to follow up on it.  If there is enough interest, I'll post, otherwise
I`ll email the article to interested people.  the quick summary is that
extfs is dog-slow once the disk has been fragmented, and both ext2fs and
xiafs do much better, though still not as good as the minix fs.  Also, xiafs
did much better at reading than ext2fs on a fragmented disk, enough of
a reason for me to go with it over the ext2fs.

--

 
 
 

Compiling X apps with shared libs.

Post by william E Davids » Tue, 02 Mar 1993 07:55:59


| >you can install the next disk.  Obcourse you could use an extfs partition
| >instead, but extfs is soooo slow.
|
|
| Really? I'd be quite interested to see some benchmark figures for the various
| filesystems that exist now. (...and I'm sure so would others!)

  I'll let someone else run the benchmarks, but the problem is use of a
freelist instead of a bitmap. This saves space but increases
fragmentation over time. Therefore the partition gets slower.

  This is why BSD uses AFS, SysV went to UFS, SCO went to EAFS, xfs was
written, and efs2 will have bitmaps. The initial f/s is not sloer by
much (if any), but an active f/s slows down as fragmentation increases.

--
bill davidsen, GE Corp. R&D Center; Box 8; Schenectady NY 12345
    Windows NT is a *great* program!
    It's everything CP/M should have been all along.

 
 
 

Compiling X apps with shared libs.

Post by Remy CA » Wed, 03 Mar 1993 03:00:26




>| >you can install the next disk.  Obcourse you could use an extfs partition
>| >instead, but extfs is soooo slow.
>|
>|
>| Really? I'd be quite interested to see some benchmark figures for the various
>| filesystems that exist now. (...and I'm sure so would others!)

>  I'll let someone else run the benchmarks, but the problem is use of a
>freelist instead of a bitmap. This saves space but increases
>fragmentation over time. Therefore the partition gets slower.

>  This is why BSD uses AFS, SysV went to UFS, SCO went to EAFS, xfs was
>written, and efs2 will have bitmaps. The initial f/s is not sloer by

                   ^^^^^^^^^
                     has

Quote:>much (if any), but an active f/s slows down as fragmentation increases.

>--
>bill davidsen, GE Corp. R&D Center; Box 8; Schenectady NY 12345
>    Windows NT is a *great* program!
>    It's everything CP/M should have been all along.

--

        Remy Card

 
 
 

Compiling X apps with shared libs.

Post by william E Davids » Thu, 04 Mar 1993 04:03:35



| >  This is why BSD uses AFS, SysV went to UFS, SCO went to EAFS, xfs was
| >written, and efs2 will have bitmaps. The initial f/s is not sloer by
|                    ^^^^^^^^^
|                      has
|
| >much (if any), but an active f/s slows down as fragmentation increases.

  Point taken, efs2 is not a future any more. As to questions of xfs
release vs efs2, I got a usefully stable xfs first, and that was the
sole basis of my comment of the more tested comment. It may be that my
systems triggered some rare bugs in the early release of efs2, so my
perception was that xfs has been in useful shape longer. Has xfs not
been working I might have looked into the efs2 problems, but as it was I
just dropped it.

  Sheesh, people, I have no vested interest in one or the other, as long
as at least one works. When efs came out I suggested that it would
suffer as it aged, and this has sure proven to be true, but that doesn't
make me "against" efs, I'm just commenting on what I see.

--
bill davidsen, GE Corp. R&D Center; Box 8; Schenectady NY 12345
    Windows NT is a *great* program!
    It's everything CP/M should have been all along.

 
 
 

1. Help - shared libs lib****.so.4 lib***.so.5

Can anyone advise me ??

I have recently set up a Linux-FT system - runnung well and v. stable -
installing applications and utilities many will not run as they appear
to be missing lib* files. eg. Mosaic asks for libc.so.4 libm.so.4, I
have libc.so.5 and libm.so.5 , so I need both sets of 'lib' files??
What is the best solution?

thanks

Chris

2. HELP!! KDE install problem...

3. Problem with x apps not able to find shared libs.

4. Loopback speed = eth0 speed !?!?!?

5. Can't link X apps - missing shared lib?

6. Unix Admin. Horror Stories Available via anon ftp

7. HELP: Compiling ELF apps which use a.out libs

8. FTP

9. help, apps finding libs in kde2/libs...??

10. HOw to compile SHARED libs?

11. Compiling and Linking with Shared Libs Under GCC

12. 1 * vxjcLnWdi-Compiling shared lib with native Sun compiler (cc, aka, CC)

13. Guru help wanted for compiling libc4.7.2 (a.out shared lib)