Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!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 Lib Question (ISC)
Keywords: ISC i386 shared libraries
Message-ID: <184@titccy.cc.titech.ac.jp>
Date: 13 May 91 08:28:26 GMT
References: <162@titccy.cc.titech.ac.jp> <7690@auspex.auspex.com> <169@titccy.cc.titech.ac.jp> <7762@auspex.auspex.com>
Sender: news@titccy.cc.titech.ac.jp
Organization: Tokyo Institute of Technology
Lines: 27

In article <7762@auspex.auspex.com>
	guy@auspex.auspex.com (Guy Harris) writes:

>>Apparently, you haven't used many OSes. Most OSes do many things badly.
>
>Irrelevant.  I said that different OSes provide various functions in
>different fashions, which means that the fact that different OSes
>implement shared libraries isn't any sort of valid argument against
>shared libraries; your statement doesn't have any relevance to that.

The problem is that NO OS support shared libraries right, perhaps because
there is no way to do so.

>>Moreover, there seems to be no right implementation of shared libraries, so
>>far.

>OK, so what would you consider a "right" implementation of them?  

Do you consider there is a "right" one?

>What
>don't you like about, say, Multics's implementation, or VMS's, or
>Aegis's, or SunOS 4.x/S5R4's, or OSF/1's, or....?

Indirect jumps and accompanied process private data for the jump table.

						Masataka Ohta