From owner-freebsd-current Tue Apr 1 09:50:15 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id JAA15554 for current-outgoing; Tue, 1 Apr 1997 09:50:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from who.cdrom.com (who.cdrom.com [204.216.27.3]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id JAA15542 for ; Tue, 1 Apr 1997 09:50:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from nlsystems.com (nlsys.demon.co.uk [158.152.125.33]) by who.cdrom.com (8.8.5/8.6.11) with ESMTP id JAA14878 for ; Tue, 1 Apr 1997 09:49:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nlsystems.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA04222; Tue, 1 Apr 1997 18:43:20 +0100 (BST) Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 18:43:20 +0100 (BST) From: Doug Rabson To: John Polstra cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: A new Kernel Module System In-Reply-To: <199704011653.IAA02429@austin.polstra.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-current@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Tue, 1 Apr 1997, John Polstra wrote: > > 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. > > Yes, you're right. I stand corrected. You get zillions of warnings > about RRS text relocations, but the output file does seem to be > legitimate. > > I still have doubts that this buys you anything, though. Is there any > advantage over just using the static symbol table and relocations? > Remember, you'll have to link against kernel symbols too, and it won't > have a run-time symbol table. I plan to link the kernel as if it was a dynamic executable. This involves hacking ld(1) so that it still generates _DYNAMIC information even if no shared libraries are seen in the link. -- Doug Rabson Mail: dfr@nlsystems.com Nonlinear Systems Ltd. Phone: +44 181 951 1891