Hi,I hope you won't mind that I reply to the list.
Sure not!
Standa Opichal wrote:
:
4) .so libs without real sharing (any working gcc target, anyhow modified)gcc has nothing to do with that. It is the linker, ld, that would produce the shared libraries (.so).
Yes, just the code needs to be relocatable using some tables. However it probably doesn't even need to be -fPIC, right? Perhaps the current format may be simply used?
Would need to provide the relocation tables to be appended to the generated .o/.so/binary files. OS would not feature any sharing, but just load the whole thing into memory each time is is requested to be linked together and relocate to a particular physical address (no VM).I think this is a very good idea.
Good to hear finaly! :)
It shouldn't be that much work.
Fine!
Your idea is to provide dynamic linking, but still keep a private copy of the entire code (text and data) in each processes memory, correct?
This is exactly what I tried to propose here. So perhaps my English skils are not good enough to let you all get it for the first time ;)
Of course, you will not save any memory if you copy the code, but you will still have a lot of advantages. Not only, that you save a lot of recompilation and repackaging after changing a shared library; a lot of software that links modules/plug-ins dynamically (Apache, Perl, ...)would become a lot more usable.
Exactly my thoughts! And FreeMiNT's memory is cheap nowadays.. :) best regards
STan