Tech Insider					     Technology and Trends


			      USENET Archives

From: peter@micromuse.co.uk (Peter Galbavy)
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Shared libraries - info for 386BSD porting wanted
Date: 11 Sep 92 15:35:37 GMT

Hi,

Due to no response in the bsd group a couple of weeks ago, and the fact
I recently noticed that linux seems to have shared libraries I was
wondering if whoever knows *lots* about them can either (a) try to port
them or (b) help me port the implementaion across.

I realise that this will not be a trivial operation, but it is a starting
point.

At minimum, will someone tell me the "minimum working set" of linux source
files needed to understand how they are implemented. I take it there are
bits in exec() somewhere ? and the linker etc...

Thanks from a frustrated laptop owner without X386 due to lack of disk
space,
-- 
Peter Galbavy
Tech Support, Micromuse Ltd
Phone: +44 71 352 7774          E-Mail: P.Galbavy@micromuse.co.uk

From: veit@du9ds3.uni-duisburg.de (Holger Veit)
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Re: Shared libraries - info for 386BSD porting wanted
Date: 12 Sep 92 10:23:27 GMT
Reply-To: veit@du9ds3.uni-duisburg.de

In <peter.716225737@hilly> peter@micromuse.co.uk (Peter Galbavy) writes:

>Hi,

>Due to no response in the bsd group a couple of weeks ago, and the fact
>I recently noticed that linux seems to have shared libraries I was
>wondering if whoever knows *lots* about them can either (a) try to port
>them or (b) help me port the implementaion across.

>I realise that this will not be a trivial operation, but it is a starting
>point.

>At minimum, will someone tell me the "minimum working set" of linux source
>files needed to understand how they are implemented. I take it there are
>bits in exec() somewhere ? and the linker etc...

>Thanks from a frustrated laptop owner without X386 due to lack of disk
>space,
>-- 
>Peter Galbavy
>Tech Support, Micromuse Ltd
>Phone: +44 71 352 7774         E-Mail: P.Galbavy@micromuse.co.uk

Another thread has been just started about that. Don't look at the Linux
sources, the type of implementation is for a hacker's OS ;-), but not for the 
future. Linux uses (as most SysV systems) fixed addresses for shared 
libraries, which is, with one simple word *unacceptable*.

Holger

-- 
|  |   / Dr. Holger Veit         | INTERNET: veit@du9ds3.uni-duisburg.de
|__|  /  University of Duisburg  | BITNET: veit%du9ds3.uni-duisburg.de@UNIDO
|  | /   Dept. of Electr. Eng.   | "No, my programs are not BUGGY, these are
|  |/    Inst. f. Dataprocessing |          just unexpected FEATURES"

From: eric@tantalus.dell.com (Eric Youngdale)
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Re: Shared libraries - info for 386BSD porting wanted
Date: 12 Sep 92 13:22:17 GMT

In article <veit.716293407@du9ds3> veit@du9ds3.uni-duisburg.de writes:
>Another thread has been just started about that. Don't look at the Linux
>sources, the type of implementation is for a hacker's OS ;-), but not for the 
>future. Linux uses (as most SysV systems) fixed addresses for shared 
>libraries, which is, with one simple word *unacceptable*.

        Huh? Let me see, BSD does not have shared libraries, and Linux, like
SysV uses fixed addresses...  Exactly what OS does have acceptable sharable
libraries?   When you say "unacceptable", it almost sounds like you will
refuse to use them under linux.  Is this really the case?

        Now that the user address space has been increased to 3 Gb, what
possible difference could it make to you whether the shared library has
fixed addresses or not?  The only drawback that I know of is that some
minor deity needs to decide which libraries get what addresses.  

--
Eric Youngdale
eric@tantalus.nrl.navy.mil

			        About USENET

USENET (Users’ Network) was a bulletin board shared among many computer
systems around the world. USENET was a logical network, sitting on top
of several physical networks, among them UUCP, BLICN, BERKNET, X.25, and
the ARPANET. Sites on USENET included many universities, private companies
and research organizations. See USENET Archives.

		       SCO Files Lawsuit Against IBM

March 7, 2003 - The SCO Group filed legal action against IBM in the State 
Court of Utah for trade secrets misappropriation, tortious interference, 
unfair competition and breach of contract. The complaint alleges that IBM 
made concentrated efforts to improperly destroy the economic value of 
UNIX, particularly UNIX on Intel, to benefit IBM's Linux services 
business. See SCO vs IBM.

The materials and information included in this website may only be used
for purposes such as criticism, review, private study, scholarship, or
research.

Electronic mail:			       WorldWideWeb:
   tech-insider@outlook.com			  http://tech-insider.org/