Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:16965 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 55346 invoked by uid 1010); 28 Jun 2005 14:56:19 -0000 Delivered-To: ezmlm-scan-internals@lists.php.net Delivered-To: ezmlm-internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 55331 invoked from network); 28 Jun 2005 14:56:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO pb1.pair.com) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 28 Jun 2005 14:56:19 -0000 X-Host-Fingerprint: 64.233.184.202 wproxy.gmail.com Linux 2.4/2.6 Received: from ([64.233.184.202:9357] helo=wproxy.gmail.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 1.2 r(5656M)) with SMTP id 66/6F-00424-11561C24 for ; Tue, 28 Jun 2005 10:56:17 -0400 Received: by wproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id i21so631065wra for ; Tue, 28 Jun 2005 07:56:14 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=VZ5CKTbG9R7u+QGiGj/8zCujfzwNPPjWVWrhtU33x2maCJ3qMZ4V0E7dKNYGr5kaqwblTYATl+o5Sjqs7W/frrRolmggovOOHY2xHbIyescBmxOypHpw2js4LspFcF7v79XkMrGPUb+M0umILBuruit05W8K4ZXDY9kacENEyGk= Received: by 10.54.23.16 with SMTP id 16mr6521wrw; Tue, 28 Jun 2005 07:56:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.54.153.5 with HTTP; Tue, 28 Jun 2005 07:56:13 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4e89b4260506280756448e9863@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 10:56:13 -0400 Reply-To: Wez Furlong To: Derick Rethans Cc: DvDmanDT , internals@lists.php.net In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline References: <20050627195348.3243.qmail@web51613.mail.yahoo.com> <9B.A1.00424.B7BA0C24@pb1.pair.com> <4e89b42605062807037c039646@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Win32 php4ts.dll 875k Larger in 5.1? From: kingwez@gmail.com (Wez Furlong) It does things differently; it compiles the DLLs to run at a particular base address; provided every DLL is compiled at a different base, then it can be mapped directly into the right memory space. If there are overlaps between the compiled bases, then the loader can relocate DLLs until it figures out the best way to fit them all into the address space. This step becomes more expensive and more likely to occur as the quantity of DLLs used by a process increases. This is a rough explantation, based on an article I read about a year ago. If I'm wrong, then I cite misinformation as the cause ;-) --Wez. On 6/28/05, Derick Rethans wrote: > On Tue, 28 Jun 2005, Wez Furlong wrote: >=20 > > It doesn't hurt anything; in fact, a single big DLL is more resource > > efficient than a number of smaller DLLs on win32, as the kernel > > doesn't need to spend as much time relocating the DLLs. >=20 > Jus twondering... windows has no non-pic thing? >=20 > Derick > -- > Derick Rethans > http://derickrethans.nl | http://ez.no | http://xdebug.org >