Return to BSD News archive
Path: sserve!manuel!munnari.oz.au!uunet!charon.amdahl.com!amdahl!JUTS!griffin!gab10
From: gab10@griffincd.amdahl.com (Gary A Browning)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Shared Libs for X11?, was Re: 386bsd -- The New Newsgroup
Keywords: shared libraries X X11
Message-ID: <7dnL02y821gh01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>
Date: 11 Sep 92 03:20:36 GMT
References: <18iprpINNg6e@agate.berkeley.edu> <1992Sep8.200625.2894@socrates.umd.edu> <veit.716026274@du9ds3> <18lkkkINN14d@agate.berkeley.edu> <veit.716107923@du9ds3>
Sender: netnews@ccc.amdahl.com
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA
Lines: 46
In article <veit.716107923@du9ds3>, veit@du9ds3.uni-duisburg.de (Holger
Veit) writes:
[ stuff about naming new newgroup deleted ]
> >For example, shared libraries are quite easy to "hack in" (just look at
> >Linux), and for some systems that is probably the best approach -- just
> >get it in there and going. However, there are several considerations that
> >must be dealt with before putting in such a feature. Expedient approaches
> >can result in a long-time legacy that is difficult to support and even
> >impedes new progress in related areas.
>
> Currently I'm still "hacking" at pccons (will be called "co"nsole
> driver next),
> but my next goal is quite clear: I want to have the disk space back
> that is
> currently used by statically linked X apps (=> shared libs). We should
> talk
> about that in another *thread*.
Ok, this is another thread. ;-)
I just finished installing X and noticed that most binaries are several times
larger than expected due to the lack of shared libraries. I caught an article
posted here a few days back that quickly described the SysVr3 approach of using
fixed addresses for the libraries and the Sun/SysVr4 approach of using position
independent code.
I tend to dislike the SysVr3 method since I got the impression that the source
code had to be written differently (though I am not sure why). I also noted
that the GCC-2.2.2 compiler I just got compiled can produce PIC code which
would be one of the major hurdles for the SysVr4 method.
Any knowledgable person want to talk a little more about the pros and cons of
these two (or any other) approach?
Anyone kept up with the Linux discussions of shared library implementations?
Can you summarize?
What ever happened to the Jolix's special interest groups? Wasn't one of them
addressing the shared library problem?
--
Gary Browning | Exhilaration is that feeling you get just after a
| great idea hits you, and just before you realize
| what is wrong with it.