Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 03:09:06 +0100 From: Eivind Eklund <eivind@yes.no> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> Cc: Eivind Eklund <eivind@yes.no>, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Heads up: static -ification Message-ID: <19980210030906.20113@follo.net> In-Reply-To: <199802091955.MAA29539@usr09.primenet.com>; from Terry Lambert on Mon, Feb 09, 1998 at 07:55:59PM %2B0000 References: <19980209064733.56080@follo.net> <199802091955.MAA29539@usr09.primenet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Feb 09, 1998 at 07:55:59PM +0000, Terry Lambert wrote: > > I'm just about to commit a change that staticize close to everything that > > can be staticized and doesn't look unreasonable to staticize (almost 400 > > variables and functions). > > > > If anybody get problems with undefined symbols in some way, then please > > yell at me. > > > > GENERIC and LINT compiles and links as usual. > > Remember that functions and variables are exported interfaces in > many cases. This includes user space uses for "ps", "w", "netstat", > and so on, as well as kernel space uses. I know. I hope I didn't break any of them; the suspicion that I might have was the reason for sending the heads-up in the first place. I though fixing this (the extreme spread of kernel symbols) was worth the potential trouble. BTW: Speaking of symbol spread - you once gave a reference to the ld manpage and implied that it was possible to create new object files included a specific subset of the symbols from the original object files. I tried to find out how to do this, as I wanted it both for the kernel and for libalias, but I've spent quite some time without finding out how to do it. Would you mind giving detailed instructions? (Re-creating object files is easy, the problem is controlling which symbols to include on a fine-grained basis). > For a potential kernel environment, you should be careful to not > disallow dynamic replacement of kernel pieces using "generic" > loadable modules (ie: if something is a function pointer, it > should not be static'ed, unless there is an encapsulation function > that can be used to modify its value, and then the encapsulation > function should not be static). I think I may have broken one of these. I'll look through my patches again. (I remember seeing something that looked like the above, and I don't remember what I did with it. I just remember being in doubt.) Eivind. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19980210030906.20113>