[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [MiNT] What's in, what's out?

To: mint@fishpool.com (MiNT mailing list)
Subject: Re: [MiNT] What's in, what's out?
From: Guido Flohr <gufl0000@stud.uni-sb.de>
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 01:45:30 +0100
In-reply-to: <NCBBIPMOPKLLGKJPBINCAEBIDGAA.reschke@muenster.de>; from Julian Reschke on Sun, Nov 28, 1999 at 12:20:57PM +0100
Mail-followup-to: mint@fishpool.com (MiNT mailing list)
References: <19991128032222.F37@stud> <NCBBIPMOPKLLGKJPBINCAEBIDGAA.reschke@muenster.de>
Sender: owner-mint@fishpool.com

On Sun, Nov 28, 1999 at 12:20:57PM +0100, Julian Reschke wrote:
> > mbaserel has only one effect: The text segment is shared on fork(). But if
> > your program forks and then execs another image you win nothing.  The fork
> > is a little faster but that is eaten up by the base-relative addressing.
> 
> It's also shared on Pexec(), right?

Effectively, if your programs execs another image there is nothing to
share because the text segment differs.  Or am I missing something?

Anyway, the point is: It would be absolutely useless to build QED
mbaserel. Same with ifconfig or route (they happened to be mbaserel in the
original MiNTNet distribution).

Ciao

Guido
-- 
http://stud.uni-sb.de/~gufl0000/
mailto:guido@atari.org

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [MiNT] What's in, what's out?
  - From: Martin-Eric Racine <q-funk@pp.fishpool.fi>
- RE: [MiNT] What's in, what's out?
  - From: "Julian Reschke" <reschke@medicaldataservice.de>

References:
- Re: [MiNT] What's in, what's out?
  - From: Guido Flohr <gufl0000@stud.uni-sb.de>
- RE: [MiNT] What's in, what's out?
  - From: "Julian Reschke" <reschke@muenster.de>

Prev by Date: Re: [MiNT] What's in, what's out?
Next by Date: Re: [MiNT] What's in, what's out?
Previous by thread: RE: [MiNT] What's in, what's out?
Next by thread: Re: [MiNT] What's in, what's out?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread