Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 17:34:18 +0100 (BST) From: Doug Rabson <dfr@nlsystems.com> To: John Polstra <jdp@polstra.com> Cc: phk@critter.dk.tfs.com, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: A new Kernel Module System Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.95q.970401173206.4064B-100000@kipper.nlsystems.com> In-Reply-To: <199704011627.IAA01496@austin.polstra.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 1 Apr 1997, John Polstra wrote: > > Exactly what I was thinking. PIC has no benefits for the kernel. > > The only thing I would need from the a.out shlib format is the > > relocations and runtime symbol table. > > I don't think you can get a runtime symbol table, unless you're building > a shared object, i.e., using PIC. You'll have to use the "normal" > symbol table. That shouldn't be a problem as far as I can see. I am pretty sure that if I link a bunch of objects together using -Bshareable, then ld(1) will generate a symbol table for me. The objects don't have to contain PIC code for this. You can do this with non-PIC objects for userland shared libraries but the text relocations make this wasteful of memory. -- Doug Rabson Mail: dfr@nlsystems.com Nonlinear Systems Ltd. Phone: +44 181 951 1891
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.95q.970401173206.4064B-100000>