Date: Mon, 20 Feb 1995 22:37:44 +0300 From: "Andrey A. Chernov, Black Mage" <ache@astral.msk.su> To: ljo@po.CWRU.Edu, Terry Lambert <terry@cs.weber.edu> Cc: current@freefall.cdrom.com, nate@trout.sri.MT.net, rgrimes@gndrsh.aac.dev.com Subject: Re: libcompat and shlib conflict Message-ID: <dF8-EIlS14@astral.msk.su> In-Reply-To: <9502201642.AA03124@cs.weber.edu>; from Terry Lambert at Mon, 20 Feb 95 9:42:52 MST References: <9502201642.AA03124@cs.weber.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <9502201642.AA03124@cs.weber.edu> Terry Lambert writes: >A program compiled with a static libcompat as opposed to a dynamic >libcompat is more likely to correctly match another platforms ABI >in any case. Not only are we not guaranteed that the external >globals linked into your program and referenced by the libcompat >routines will be the same on another platform (causing their shared >libcompat to fail), but the cruft in libcompat is likely as not >going to be different from vendor to vendor anyway. If you look in, you can see, that other platforms do just the same thing, only one condition needs to be present: regerror module itself must be placed before regex module, as already done. >The cost of the cruft should be bourne by the crufty program. Too many crufty pgms in the world. You don't have enough power to teach whole world which functions to use. -- Andrey A. Chernov : And I rest so composedly, /Now, in my bed, ache@astral.msk.su : That any beholder /Might fancy me dead - FidoNet: 2:5020/230.3 : Might start at beholding me, /Thinking me dead. RELCOM Team,FreeBSD Team : E.A.Poe From "For Annie" 1849
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?dF8-EIlS14>