Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!bloom-beacon!eru!hagbard!sunic!kullmar!pkmab!ske
From: ske@pkmab.se (Kristoffer Eriksson)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.internals
Subject: Re: Fundamental defect of the concept of shared libraries
Message-ID: <5618@pkmab.se>
Date: 1 Jun 91 05:40:32 GMT
References: <197@titccy.cc.titech.ac.jp> <1991May16.200702.7476@Think.COM> <209@titccy.cc.titech.ac.jp>
Organization: Peridot Konsult i Mellansverige AB, Oerebro, Sweden
Lines: 20

In article <209@titccy.cc.titech.ac.jp> mohta@necom830.cc.titech.ac.jp (Masataka Ohta) writes:
>In article <1991May16.200702.7476@Think.COM> barmar@think.com writes:
>>When PC-relative addressing isn't available or usable, you just need
>>register+offset addressing, which most computers have.
>
>I was wrong here, yes, it is possible if we use indirect addressing to
>access global data, but it is slow.

Why would register-relative addressing be any slower than PC-relative
addressing?

> In-lining of functions in shared libraries is, of course, impossible.

What nonsense. If you inline such a function, you simply don't reference
the version of the function in the library any more, since inlining it has
already put a copy of it at the place of the reference.
-- 
Kristoffer Eriksson, Peridot Konsult AB, Hagagatan 6, S-703 40 Oerebro, Sweden
Phone: +46 19-13 03 60  !  e-mail: ske@pkmab.se
Fax:   +46 19-11 51 03  !  or ...!{uunet,mcsun}!sunic.sunet.se!kullmar!pkmab!ske