glenn@suphys.physics.su.OZ.AU (Glenn Geers) (11/02/90)
Hi, Anyone know why Xenix binaries consume about 4 times the memory of that used by the same program compiled under UNIX? BTW both are run on the UNIX box. Is both code and data shown for Xenix executables on the ps list? Thanks, Glenn glenn@qed.physics.su.oz.au -- Glenn Geers | "So when it's over, we're back to people. Department of Theoretical Physics | Just to prove that human touch can have The University of Sydney | no equal." Sydney NSW 2006 Australia | - Basia Trzetrzelewska, 'Prime Time TV'
cpcahil@virtech.uucp (Conor P. Cahill) (11/02/90)
In article <1990Nov1.225155.1087@metro.ucc.su.OZ.AU> glenn@suphys.physics.su.OZ.AU (Glenn Geers) writes: > Anyone know why Xenix binaries consume about 4 times the memory of >that used by the same program compiled under UNIX? BTW both are run on >the UNIX box. Is both code and data shown for Xenix executables on the ps >list? You didn't give enough information in your question. A. What versions of each operating system? B. What was the size of the program? A 300% gain sounds like a big problem until you look and see that the size went from 1K to 4K. (small differences may just be due to different memory architectures) C. What happens when you reverse the issue? (what is the relative size of both executables when run on the xenix system?) -- Conor P. Cahill (703)430-9247 Virtual Technologies, Inc., uunet!virtech!cpcahil 46030 Manekin Plaza, Suite 160 Sterling, VA 22170
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (11/06/90)
> Anyone know why Xenix binaries consume about 4 times the memory of > that used by the same program compiled under UNIX? BTW both are run on > the UNIX box. Is both code and data shown for Xenix executables on the ps > list? I don't know why in your case, but I have found that some Xenix-286 runtimes depend on some feature of Xenix whereby they can request a *segment* smaller than 64K. Unix System V with x286emul satisfies this request with a 64K segment. The effect of this can be easily imagined, and is one reason we are still using Xenix 286 on our 386 boxes. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' +1 713 274 5180. 'U` peter@ferranti.com
davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (Wm E. Davidsen Jr) (12/06/90)
In article <E3X6014@xds13.ferranti.com> peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes: | > Anyone know why Xenix binaries consume about 4 times the memory of | > that used by the same program compiled under UNIX? BTW both are run on | > the UNIX box. Is both code and data shown for Xenix executables on the ps | > list? | | I don't know why in your case, but I have found that some Xenix-286 runtimes Could be the shared libraries, too. -- bill davidsen - davidsen@sixhub.uucp (uunet!crdgw1!sixhub!davidsen) sysop *IX BBS and Public Access UNIX moderator of comp.binaries.ibm.pc and 80386 mailing list "Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me