Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 23:16:12 +1000 (EST) From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> To: Garrett Wollman <wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> Cc: msmith@FreeBSD.ORG, arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: sysorg: sys/modules Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0106152306280.84674-100000@besplex.bde.org> In-Reply-To: <200106151216.IAA22612@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 15 Jun 2001, Garrett Wollman wrote: > In article <200106151055.f5FAtbm10056@mass.dis.org> you write: > > >This pushes us back to a single filename namespace, which is less than a > >wonderful idea. 8( It's good enough for libc.a, so it should be good enough for a small application like the kernel. > We're always going to have that so long as we continue to expect > static linkage to work. I don't see why. Linking together file.o and dir/file.o should work if there are no conflicts between their global symbols. The filename symbols are like local symbols and might cause complications for debugging, but so might ordinary local symbols with the same names. Different filenames might be needed for grouping object files into static libraries. Bruce To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0106152306280.84674-100000>