octave-maintainers
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: New hash function


From: John W. Eaton
Subject: Re: New hash function
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2015 12:45:36 -0600
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/31.5.0

On 12/16/2015 07:37 PM, LachlanA wrote:
John W. Eaton wrote
The dldfcn
directory is for functions that require external libraries that we would
prefer to avoid loading unless they are needed.  but if a function just
depends on functionality provided by libraries that are always loaded,
there is no particular advantage to making it a .oct file so it might as
well be always linked with Octave.

jwe,

Thanks for clarifying the role of the dld directory.

Doesn't making rarely-used functions .oct files reduce the memory footprint
by the size of that function?  That is a benefit for all applications that
don't use that function (i.e., the majority)?  What is the overhead of using
a .oct file instead of building the function in (either in time to load or
memory overhead once loaded)?

Most of these functions are so small that I don't see the point of making them .oct files. They might as well just be built in unless they depend on external libraries that are not normally linked with Octave.

jwe




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]