Re: Shared libraries?

 
> "kernel" as k-code, and ring 3 "kernel" as u-code. u-code would be
> attached at a fixed address at bootup with your usual leading jump table
> to get to the various functions. When you boot a kernel you run your
> programs with the loaded version of both k-code and u-code.

I'm not sure I have this right. Basically, what everyone wants to share
(I think) is libc. If I understand correctly, this would be an example of
your u-code? Doing this with the "old Linux" method would leave us with
a jump table for libc functions in memory, with appropriate library loading
code in crt0.o.

Do I have this right? Is this so hard to do?

> Most studies suggest that the savings in memory is not very great.
> The big savings is in disk space and in convenience in having your

Yes, you're right here. You do save a lot of disk space, although the
memory savings are pretty good under Linux also (eg: I can run X and
lots of small clients and all the usual Unix/networking daemons without
excessive swapping in 5M of memory. I _really_ don't think it'd be
possible if each binary included their own copies of the various X
and libc functions.)

Anyhow, in the short term, my goal is to get out of MS-DOS. Andy, you
mentioned "dmake" before. Where can I get source for that? Anyone else
know of a decent free make with source (and don't say GNU make <grin>)?

Pat -- "There's only one thing left to do Mama, I got to ding a ding dang
        my dang a long ling long" (Jesus Built My Hotrod -- Ministry)
GCS d* -p+ c++ l++ m--- s+/- !g w- t- r
Received on Wed Aug 18 09:30:00 1993