Date: Tue, 25 Apr 1995 11:40:10 -0600 From: Nate Williams <nate@trout.sri.MT.net> To: terry@cs.weber.edu (Terry Lambert), patl@asimov.lashley.slip.netcom.com Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Shlib complaints ( was Re: benchmark hell..) Message-ID: <199504251740.LAA12140@trout.sri.MT.net> In-Reply-To: terry@cs.weber.edu (Terry Lambert) "Re: benchmark hell.." (Apr 25, 11:19am)
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[ only exporting specified symbols in shlibs ] > Clearly, this would also resolve the problem of "curses" with the > C++ libraries. The problem with this is that we are now placing a migh bigger load on the developer to specify which symbols to be exported, rather than having the compiler do it with judicious use of static and extern as it is currently. > The problem in the current implementation that prevents this is that > the link does not "run to completion" as it would with a normal library > archive; that is, instead of dragging in only the externally referenced > code from the shared lib as linked dynamic symbols and then dragging in > only the library data referenced by the code in the program and the code > previously dragged in, all data and all code are dragged in. This is a problem in the current implementation, but Paul's intention was to mimic Sun-style shlibs, which he has done pretty well. > This is an inevitable result of not using an archive format for the > shared library objects so they can be pulled in an object at a time (or > not), which is what you do with normal library archives. This would solve some of the problems I've been trying to work out, but it would mean a re-write of most of the code, which is IMHO not worth it. Nate
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199504251740.LAA12140>