Subject: Re: CVS commit: src
To: Chris G. Demetriou <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Jason Thorpe <email@example.com>
Date: 01/25/1999 10:03:25
On 24 Jan 1999 20:37:39 -0800
firstname.lastname@example.org (Chris G. Demetriou) wrote:
> It's not clear to me that it's appropriate to have the loadable
> modules be .so's (implying to me PIC) rather than .o's (not PIC).
> The savings of PIC objects don't buy you much: you're only going to be
> using one copy at a time, you're not going to be paging 'text' bits of
> them back to the original file, etc. On the other hand, on most
> architectures, PIC code has at least some additional execution time
> and/or code size when compared to non-PIC code.
hm, true enough... I think I was thinking ".so" just because my brain
was locked in "dynamic linker" thinking mode.
Other than this nit, what about the rest of my comments? :-)
-- Jason R. Thorpe <email@example.com>