Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!mahendo!wlbr!WLV.IMSD.CONTEL.COM!sms
From: sms@WLV.IMSD.CONTEL.COM (Steven M. Schultz)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: IBM PC prehistory
Message-ID: <44106@wlbr.IMSD.CONTEL.COM>
Date: 16 Jan 90 05:42:01 GMT
References: <7413@drilex.UUCP> <380@bambam.UUCP>
Sender: news@wlbr.IMSD.CONTEL.COM
Reply-To: sms@WLV.IMSD.CONTEL.COM.UUCP (Steven M. Schultz)
Organization: Contel Federal Systems
Lines: 18

In article <380@bambam.UUCP> bpendlet@bambam.UUCP (Bob Pendleton) writes:
>My conclusion is that you've never heard of a relocating loader. I
>didn't say linker, I said loader. It is pretty easy for a linker to
>build executable modules that contain no absolute addresses...
>The back patching operation can be pretty quick, but it does slow down
>program loading...
>The point is that you can relocate programs at load time with
>no runtime penalty, no weird coding style for relocatability, and no
>MMU. 

	and of course the same thing can be done when a process is
	swapped out and reloaded later at a different memory location?

	a relocating loader sounds like only a part (the easy one) of
	the solution.  there's more to do than just loading the program
	the 1st time.

	Steven