From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Jan 9 11:41:07 1996 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id LAA00924 for hackers-outgoing; Tue, 9 Jan 1996 11:41:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from austin.polstra.com (austin.polstra.com [206.213.73.10]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id LAA00919 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 1996 11:41:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from austin.polstra.com (jdp@localhost) by austin.polstra.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA14033; Tue, 9 Jan 1996 11:38:17 -0800 Message-Id: <199601091938.LAA14033@austin.polstra.com> To: dfr@render.com Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Anyone got GNU `dld' ported to FreeBSD? Date: Tue, 09 Jan 1996 11:38:17 -0800 From: John Polstra Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org Precedence: bulk Doug Rabson wrote: > I think the right thing to do would be to have ld create a complete > struct _dynamic for the application, with symbol tables. When it > initialises ld.so, it supplies this table. > > When the app dlopens an object depending on libc.so, libc is mapped > as usual (since it is not already loaded) but all the symbol lookups > for libc symbols which happen to be linked into the main application > would use the app's version by the normal rules. This is a lot of machinery you're talking about! Why would this be easier or better than simply building the application to be dynamically linked in the first place? -- John Polstra jdp@polstra.com John D. Polstra & Co., Inc. Seattle, Washington USA "Self-knowledge is always bad news." -- John Barth