Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!pacbell.com!ucsd!dog.ee.lbl.gov!elf.ee.lbl.gov!torek
From: torek@elf.ee.lbl.gov (Chris Torek)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: dynamic loaders
Message-ID: <12573@dog.ee.lbl.gov>
Date: 27 Apr 91 20:25:09 GMT
References: <14530@ccncsu.ColoState.EDU> <12532@dog.ee.lbl.gov>
Reply-To: torek@elf.ee.lbl.gov (Chris Torek)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley
Lines: 15
X-Local-Date: Sat, 27 Apr 91 13:25:09 PDT

In article <12532@dog.ee.lbl.gov> I left out a word:

>If you are bound and determined to do this in C, you must implement
>your own type [and] function binding systems.

Without the `and' it makes little sense.

Note that although the subject asked for a dynamic loader (which can
be implemented in machine-dependent C), but the body of the article
also asked for, in essense, some way to define `in advance' all of
the possible function call protocols.  This also can be implemented in
machine-dependent C, but it then becomes compiler-dependent as well.
-- 
In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Lawrence Berkeley Lab CSE/EE (+1 415 486 5427)
Berkeley, CA		Domain:	torek@ee.lbl.gov