Subject: Re: CVS commit: src
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Anders Magnusson <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 01/25/1999 20:44:45
> On 24 Jan 1999 20:37:39 -0800
> email@example.com (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.
1) Drink morning coffee.
2) Read and answer mail.
> Other than this nit, what about the rest of my comments? :-)
When thinking a little bit more about this, it seems that it is the
best way to go.
There are a bunch of design issues here that must be adressed also for
a generic module call system; like parameter passing to already loaded
modules etc... more about that later.