*BSD News Article 5139


Return to BSD News archive

Xref: sserve comp.os.linux:10192 comp.unix.bsd:5187
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux,comp.unix.bsd
Path: sserve!manuel!munnari.oz.au!uunet!think.com!paperboy.osf.org!meissner
From: meissner@osf.org (Michael Meissner)
Subject: Re: Shared libraries - info for 386BSD porting wanted
In-Reply-To: eric@tantalus.dell.com's message of 12 Sep 92 13:22:17 GMT
Message-ID: <MEISSNER.92Sep16171549@curley.osf.org>
Sender: news@osf.org (USENET News System)
Organization: Open Software Foundation
References: <peter.716225737@hilly> <veit.716293407@du9ds3> <3583@ra.nrl.navy.mil>
Date: 16 Sep 92 17:15:49
Lines: 20

In article <3583@ra.nrl.navy.mil> eric@tantalus.dell.com (Eric Youngdale) writes:

| 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?

Ummm, System V.3 uses fixed addresses, and such.  V.4 can load the
libraries anywhere (V.4 is based on the Sun implementation).
--
Michael Meissner	email: meissner@osf.org		phone: 617-621-8861
Open Software Foundation, 11 Cambridge Center, Cambridge, MA, 02142

You are in a twisty little passage of standards, all conflicting.