Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 20:03:37 -0600 (CST) From: Joel Ray Holveck <joelh@gnu.org> To: tlambert@primenet.com Cc: tlambert@primenet.com, chrisy@flix.net, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: sharable static arrays? Message-ID: <199801140203.UAA03069@detlev.UUCP> In-Reply-To: <199801131946.MAA14965@usr01.primenet.com> (message from Terry Lambert on Tue, 13 Jan 1998 19:46:43 %2B0000 (GMT)) References: <199801131946.MAA14965@usr01.primenet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>>> Ideally, all static data should be mapped copy-on-write. I don't >>> think it's mapped, at this point; it probably needs a seperate ELF >>> section from the rest of data, to (1) force it to a page boundry >>> for it's mapping and (2) allow it to have seperate section flags to >>> indicate it should be treated as copy-on-write. >> Is it possible with a.out? (Yes, I know, I should learn more about >> the object file formats, does anybody have good pointers?) > Sean pointed out that he thinks the original poster wanted shared > memory that could be declared in a program. What we used to call > a "Monitor Common Block" back in the old FORTRAN days. I *am* the original poster. IIRC, a monitor common block is like an mmap'd block. I just wanted a large const array across several simultanious invocations of a program to not take up lots of memory. That's all. > If you want to make a distinction between static and static global, > I still say you need a different section ID for the thing. It's now unclear what you mean by 'static' vs. 'static global'. Thanks for your help, joelh -- Joel Ray Holveck - joelh@gnu.org - http://www.wp.com/piquan Fourth law of programming: Anything that can go wrong wi sendmail: segmentation violation - core dumped
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199801140203.UAA03069>