This surprises me a little. I'm certainly no expert on the Linux kernel, but I'm a little surprised that there would be a need for separate routines linking to the same code to maintain their own copies. Was this a design decision, or does it reflect a limitation of Linux (vs. say, OpenVMS or BSD Unix)?
--- "K.S. Bhaskar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Kevin -- > > In response to the first implicit (e.g., Do PQR^XYZ for a routine > that > is not currently linked in the process address space) or any explicit > request to access a routine (e.g., ZLink "XYZ"), GT.M will search for > that routine as specified by the $ZROutines search path, compile the > routine if needed (if the .o file is older than the corresponding .m > file), bring it into the process virtual memory and link it into the > process address space. [Tangential side note for the technically > curious: if the routine is placed in a shared library on Proprietary > UNIX platforms where this is supported by GT.M, or in a shared .EXE > file > on OpenVMS, GT.M still links it into the process address space, but > the > virtual memory is shared and so overall memory usage is more > efficient > than GT.M on x86 GNU/Linux.] > === Gregory Woodhouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away." -- Antoine de Saint-Exupery ------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle Practices Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing & QA Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf _______________________________________________ Hardhats-members mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hardhats-members
