From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Feb 9 14:53:43 1999 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA20684 for freebsd-hackers-outgoing; Tue, 9 Feb 1999 14:53:43 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from smtp02.primenet.com (smtp02.primenet.com [206.165.6.132]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA20651 for ; Tue, 9 Feb 1999 14:53:34 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from tlambert@usr02.primenet.com) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by smtp02.primenet.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA18527; Tue, 9 Feb 1999 15:53:27 -0700 (MST) Received: from usr02.primenet.com(206.165.6.202) via SMTP by smtp02.primenet.com, id smtpd018310; Tue Feb 9 15:53:19 1999 Received: (from tlambert@localhost) by usr02.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id PAA11134; Tue, 9 Feb 1999 15:52:56 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert Message-Id: <199902092252.PAA11134@usr02.primenet.com> Subject: Re: ldconfig and libraries To: jdp@polstra.com (John Polstra) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 22:52:56 +0000 (GMT) Cc: tlambert@primenet.com, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, wes@softweyr.com In-Reply-To: from "John Polstra" at Feb 9, 99 02:23:17 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > > OK, next question: Why can't it be at the end of the data? > > Because then it wouldn't be in a read-only segment at execution > time. OK, next next question: who cares that it's not in a read-only segment? > And it wouldn't help anyway, because it would still come before BSS, > causing BSS to move if the RPATHs size were changed. :-) Next next next question: What's wrong with putting it at the end of the data, and putting Wes's 1K offset into the BSS start offset, instead of into the image file on disk? E.g., it takes what it takes up to MAX_PATH, but only the space used is accounted against the image size. > Anticipating another likely question: > Q. Why not make it read-write, then? What could it hurt? > A. It would violate the ELF spec. Hmmm. I thought Doug Rabson just did this on a mapping location change on the Alpha? Well... how about supporting more sections in a process image? Doesn't WINE require this, so it's already somewhat supported? Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message