Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!randvax!segue!jim
From: jim@segue.segue.com (Jim Balter)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.internals
Subject: Re: Shared Lib Question (ISC)
Message-ID: <7619@segue.segue.com>
Date: 20 May 91 10:47:30 GMT
References: <519a55d6.20b6d@apollo.HP.COM>
Reply-To: jim@segue.segue.com (Jim Balter)
Organization: Segue Software, Inc. - Santa Monica, CA. +1-213-453-2161
Lines: 13

In article <519a55d6.20b6d@apollo.HP.COM> goykhman_a@apollo.HP.COM (Alex Goykhman) writes:
>Malloc() is always called in a particular context, and always has to deal with a single
>set of memory structures.  It should not matter whether malloc() is linked to to a 
>particular process statically, or dynamically.

The thread is about global data.  The issue is how to pass "a particular
context" to routines in a shared library when that context is not passed as
explicit arguments to those routines.  What do you mean by "it should not
matter"?  Is that a moral statement?  We are discussing implementation issues,
not waving our hands vaguely.  Certainly the details of access to static data
differ ("matter") between statically and dynamically linked libraries, and
especially between libraries that are copied per-process, whether statically
or dynamically linked, and those that are shared among processes.