** Reply to message from Keith Owens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Interactive Silicon - http://www.interactivesi.com
When 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
