Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!think.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!udel!mmdf
From: wjb%cogsci.COG.JHU.EDU@vm1.nodak.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
Subject: Re: (shared libraries)
Message-ID: <53470@nigel.ee.udel.edu>
Date: 13 May 91 17:55:25 GMT
Sender: mmdf@ee.udel.edu
Lines: 20


Jan-Mark (jms%cs.vu.nl) wrote:

>I do agree that some functions should be in a shared library,
>and some should not, but where IS the complexity, mentioned?
>(Kernel patches?) IMHO globals like ``errno'' and the
>environment pointer should create big problems. The compiler
>will have to do magic there. (Like putting them in a known
>place.) The kernel should only need a new system call.  (eg.
>``slibcall (int num);'')

	This has the effect of turning EVERY library call into a
message/system call.  The STDIO functions were originally written for Unix
to provide a standard set of IO/formatting functions and to provide buffering
in order to reduce the number of system calls.  This method of
implementation will actually increase the number of system calls.  (printf()
still has to do a write().)  Shared libraries might be a good idea, but I
don't think this is the right way to do it.

				Bill Bogstad