On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 10:33:01AM -0800, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
> Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 12:34:22PM -0500, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
> >   
> >> You're right that it needs to be possible to build static kernels.  I'd 
> >> love a framework where the identical .o could be used either way. 
> >>     
> >
> > As someone who used to rely pretty heavily on static Linux kernels to
> > preserve his sanity while debugging, I'd like to say that if we're going
> > to do it the Linux way, I *really* would not love such a framework.
> >
> > Linux implements symbol versioning on all symbols in a kernel with loadable
> > module support by mangling their names in a way that makes it _extremely_
> > difficult to see what's going on with the debugger, or with normal tools
> > for looking at object files.  It would be nice to not make that mistake,
> > which can also make it very difficult to see why the kernel fails to link
> > at build time, if it does.
> >
> >   
> I propose we *not* do it the Linux way.  Linux binary modules are
> brain-dead.  Solaris is a *vastly* superior example to follow.

How do these compare to FreeBSD's dynamic loader?  And how useful
would that be as a place to start?

-- 
Andrew