Re: large binary immediately SEGV's

From: relic (nospam_at_relic2.cjb.net)
Date: 02/23/04 

Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 17:06:24 GMT

The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Kelsey Bjarnason
> <kelseyb@lightspeed.bc.ca>
> wrote
> on Sat, 21 Feb 2004 12:37:42 -0800
> <4037c082@rsl2.rslnet.net>:
>> [snips]
>>
>> The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>>
>>>> No. A 91 MB executable is BAD PROGRAMMING.
>>
>> Okay, I'll bite. Why? Be specific. Note that using run-time
>> linking can achieve much the same result... but unless there's a lot
>> of that code being shared between multiple apps, the difference
>> probably won't amount to much. So what is _inherently_ bad in
>> producing large executables? Will it still be bad when 4Gb is the
>> common "entry level" memory footprint? Is there some sort of
>> "percentage of resources" involved? If so, what percentage?
>
> Watch the attribs, please. :-)

linux causes that, you know.

<snip> 

-- 
- relic -
In the South, "He needed killin'" is a valid defense.