Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!hacgate!ladcgw.ladc.bull.com!hermes.ladc.bull.com!fmayhar
From: fmayhar@hermes.ladc.bull.com (Frank Mayhar)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.internals
Subject: Re: Shared libraries
Message-ID: <1991Apr29.213522.29521@ladc.bull.com>
Date: 29 Apr 91 21:35:22 GMT
References: <136@titccy.cc.titech.ac.jp> <718@seqp4.UUCP> <1991Apr24.231048.2987@Think.COM> <148@titccy.cc.titech.ac.jp>
Sender: usenet@ladc.bull.com (Usenet News)
Reply-To: fmayhar@hermes.ladc.bull.com
Organization: Bull HN Information Systems Los Angeles Development Center
Lines: 17
Nntp-Posting-Host: hermes.ladc.bull.com

In article <148@titccy.cc.titech.ac.jp>, mohta@necom830.cc.titech.ac.jp (Masataka Ohta) writes:
-> In article <1991Apr24.231048.2987@Think.COM>
-> 	barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin) writes:
-> >(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.

Unfortunately, Multics is dead, dead, dead.  That means that if we want
shared libraries, we _have_ to use something else.  Since Unix is here,
we'll use it.  And as I've said before (before I got busy and lost track
of this thread), shared libraries _are_ useful.  Their usefulness, in fact,
outweighs the problems with them.  Why do you think shared libraries keep
being reinvented?
-- 
Frank Mayhar  fmayhar@hermes.ladc.bull.com (..!{uunet,hacgate}!ladcgw!fmayhar)
              Bull HN Information Systems Inc.  Los Angeles Development Center
              5250 W. Century Blvd., LA, CA  90045    Phone:  (213) 216-6241