** Reply to message from Keith Owens <kaos@ocs.com.au> on Tue, 17 Oct 2000
00:43:58 +1100
> Interesting concept, linking a module with libg++. Would that be a
> dynamic or static link?
>
> If it is dynamic then you can absolutely forget about loading the
> module into the kernel, there is no way that modutils will ever support
> that. If it is a static link then every module has its own private
> copy of libg++, that would introduce more than a little kernel bloat.
> How big is a static copy of libg++ these days? The thought of two or
> more modules each with a static copy of libg++ but running in the same
> kernel address space gives me the shivers.
On OS/2, I was able to write the equivalent of libg++ for device drivers, and
the code was only a few hundred bytes (most of which were used for a heap
manager). All I did was recreate the few parts that I needed, and they were
extremely small.
-- Timur Tabi - ttabi@interactivesi.com Interactive Silicon - http://www.interactivesi.comWhen replying to a mailing-list message, please don't cc: me, because then I'll just get two copies of the same message. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 23 2000 - 21:00:09 EST