On 24 Jan 1999 20:37:39 -0800 
 cgd@netbsd.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 <thorpej@nas.nasa.gov>