Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.os.linux:9916 comp.unix.bsd:4979 Path: sserve!manuel!munnari.oz.au!spool.mu.edu!wupost!darwin.sura.net!ra!tantalus!eric From: eric@tantalus.dell.com (Eric Youngdale) Newsgroups: comp.os.linux,comp.unix.bsd Subject: Re: Shared libraries - info for 386BSD porting wanted Keywords: shared 386bsd Message-ID: <3583@ra.nrl.navy.mil> Date: 12 Sep 92 13:22:17 GMT References: <peter.716225737@hilly> <veit.716293407@du9ds3> Sender: usenet@ra.nrl.navy.mil Organization: Naval Research Laboratory Lines: 19 In article <veit.716293407@du9ds3> veit@du9ds3.uni-duisburg.de writes: >Another thread has been just started about that. Don't look at the Linux >sources, the type of implementation is for a hacker's OS ;-), but not for the >future. Linux uses (as most SysV systems) fixed addresses for shared >libraries, which is, with one simple word *unacceptable*. Huh? Let me see, BSD does not have shared libraries, and Linux, like SysV uses fixed addresses... Exactly what OS does have acceptable sharable libraries? When you say "unacceptable", it almost sounds like you will refuse to use them under linux. Is this really the case? Now that the user address space has been increased to 3 Gb, what possible difference could it make to you whether the shared library has fixed addresses or not? The only drawback that I know of is that some minor deity needs to decide which libraries get what addresses. -- Eric Youngdale eric@tantalus.nrl.navy.mil