[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: cost of popen()
|
From: |
Shigio YAMAGUCHI |
|
Subject: |
Re: cost of popen() |
|
Date: |
Sun, 14 Feb 2010 09:58:53 +0900 |
Hi,
> Should function layer plugin support dynamic linking mechanisms other than
> dlopen?
I think it is preferable.
> Is the size of distribution allowed to be increased by including libltdl?
>
> The size of tarball made from CVS HEAD is 841080 bytes.
> After the attached patch is applied, it increases to 1403206 bytes.
No problem.
By the way, why does the function layer plugin use exuberant-ctags?
--
Shigio YAMAGUCHI <address@hidden>
PGP fingerprint: D1CB 0B89 B346 4AB6 5663 C4B6 3CA5 BBB3 57BE DDA3
- Re: cost of popen(), Hideki IWAMOTO, 2010/02/13
- Re: cost of popen(),
Shigio YAMAGUCHI <=
- Re: cost of popen(), Hideki IWAMOTO, 2010/02/13
- Re: cost of popen(), Shigio YAMAGUCHI, 2010/02/14
- [PATCH] Function palyer plugin parser, Hideki IWAMOTO, 2010/02/15
- Re: [PATCH] Function palyer plugin parser, Shigio YAMAGUCHI, 2010/02/15
- Re: [PATCH] Function palyer plugin parser, Hideki IWAMOTO, 2010/02/16
- Re: [PATCH] Function palyer plugin parser, Shigio YAMAGUCHI, 2010/02/17
- Re: [PATCH] Function palyer plugin parser, Hideki IWAMOTO, 2010/02/17
- Re: [PATCH] Function palyer plugin parser, Shigio YAMAGUCHI, 2010/02/17
- Re: [PATCH] Function palyer plugin parser, Hideki IWAMOTO, 2010/02/17
- New rule (Re: [PATCH] Function palyer plugin parser), Shigio YAMAGUCHI, 2010/02/17