Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!kddlab!cs.titech!titccy.cc.titech!necom830!mohta
From: mohta@necom830.cc.titech.ac.jp (Masataka Ohta)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.internals
Subject: Re: Shared libraries
Message-ID: <148@titccy.cc.titech.ac.jp>
Date: 26 Apr 91 07:13:40 GMT
References: <136@titccy.cc.titech.ac.jp> <718@seqp4.UUCP> <1991Apr24.231048.2987@Think.COM>
Sender: news@titccy.cc.titech.ac.jp
Organization: Tokyo Institute of Technology
Lines: 20

In article <1991Apr24.231048.2987@Think.COM>
	barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin) writes:

>In article <718@seqp4.UUCP> jdarcy@seqp4.ORG (Jeff d'Arcy) writes:
>>  Do you really think so many skilled and knowledgeable
>>OS developers would implement shared libraries if they weren't worth it?

>What I want to know is why it has taken so long for them to rediscover
>shared libraries.  Multics, the predecessor to Unix, was using
>dynamically-linked, shared libraries in the 60's.

UNIX was formed by intentionally removing many unnecessary features from
Multics and other huge OSs.

>(Multics does all dynamic
>linking by indirecting through pointers with a special trap bit set

If you want shared libraries, use Multics. Don't change UNIX to Multics.

						Masataka Ohta