[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: lynx-dev bloating binaries (was clue)
From: |
Larry W. Virden |
Subject: |
Re: lynx-dev bloating binaries (was clue) |
Date: |
Mon, 1 Mar 1999 07:58:10 -0500 (EST) |
From: Henry Nelson <address@hidden>
> > The last time I looked, there were places where static arrays are
> > allocated that could be made dynamic, shrinking the binary a bit, as
>
> I would hate to start up another thread here, but I don't think dynamic
> linking always means better. In some situations, I believe static
Henry, I am not certain, but I _think_ you misunderstood the comment.
The earlier poster was referring to static vs dynamic as in:
char buff[1024]
vs
char *buff = malloc(1024)
--
Larry W. Virden <URL: mailto:address@hidden>
<URL: http://www.purl.org/NET/lvirden/> <*> O- "No one is what he seems."
Unless explicitly stated to the contrary, nothing in this posting should
be construed as representing my employer's opinions.