Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:16966 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 36731 invoked by uid 1010); 28 Jun 2005 16:58:32 -0000 Delivered-To: ezmlm-scan-internals@lists.php.net Delivered-To: ezmlm-internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 36711 invoked from network); 28 Jun 2005 16:58:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO pb1.pair.com) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 28 Jun 2005 16:58:32 -0000 X-Host-Fingerprint: 207.155.248.54 revenge.cnchost.com Solaris 9 Received: from ([207.155.248.54:39065] helo=revenge.cnchost.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 1.2 r(5656M)) with SMTP id 5D/39-00424-7B181C24 for ; Tue, 28 Jun 2005 12:58:31 -0400 Received: from rcsv650.rowe-clan.net (c-24-13-128-132.hsd1.il.comcast.net [24.13.128.132]) by revenge.cnchost.com id MAA29361; Tue, 28 Jun 2005 12:58:18 -0400 (EDT) [ConcentricHost SMTP Relay 1.17] Errors-To: Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050628114807.03492b60@pop3.rowe-clan.net> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.1.2 Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 11:55:26 -0500 To: Wez Furlong Cc: Derick Rethans , DvDmanDT , internals@lists.php.net In-Reply-To: <4e89b4260506280756448e9863@mail.gmail.com> References: <20050627195348.3243.qmail@web51613.mail.yahoo.com> <9B.A1.00424.B7BA0C24@pb1.pair.com> <4e89b42605062807037c039646@mail.gmail.com> <4e89b4260506280756448e9863@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Win32 php4ts.dll 875k Larger in 5.1? From: wrowe@rowe-clan.net ("William A. Rowe, Jr.") At 01:26 AM 6/28/2005, Andrey Hristov wrote: >Should it be named php4ts? ewww - certainly not. Win32 has no problem with loading two modules, e.g. php4ts and php5ts, mod_php4 and mod_php5 all in the same process. But not if the dll names collide. At 09:56 AM 6/28/2005, Wez Furlong wrote: >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. Yup. The most effective solution is to use the rebase command to generate a base address list, and in the linker command, use the construct /base:"baseref.lst",modname which will drop everything in expected locations. All flavors of apr and apache use this. Almost 1mb sure sounds like a candidate for unbundling from the core. Bill