Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 14:21:07 +1100 (EST) From: proff@suburbia.net To: toor@dyson.iquest.net (John S. Dyson) Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: In what way are shared libs ``shared''? Message-ID: <19970209032107.25671.qmail@suburbia.net> In-Reply-To: <199702090257.VAA06891@dyson.iquest.net> from "John S. Dyson" at "Feb 8, 97 09:57:11 pm"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > My guess would be that this is due to writable statics in library code, so > > the library is shared, but copy-on-write. > > > Note that alot of really broken VM systems immediately copy .data > in order to simplify the COW action. We don't do that, and it > does complicate the code, but of course, shares more completely. > > John > John, is it possible to force this behavior with rfork/mprotect? i.e if I rfork(RFPROC|RFMEM), and then do inet_ntoa(addr) in both parent and child, will the child COW the inet_ntoa static buffer, or will they collide? -- Prof. Julian Assange |If you want to build a ship, don't drum up people |together to collect wood and don't assign them tasks proff@iq.org |and work, but rather teach them to long for the endless proff@gnu.ai.mit.edu |immensity of the sea. -- Antoine de Saint Exupery
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19970209032107.25671.qmail>