Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 19 Dec 1997 18:16:17 -0500 | From | "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <> | Subject | Re: OFFTOPIC: binary modules, bad idea! |
| |
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 1997 17:00:38 -0600 From: Michael Elizabeth Chastain <mec@shout.net>
I want separate compilation.
Right now, if drivers/net/foo.o has an external symbol for kmalloc, it depends on include/modules/slab.ver, which is generated from mm/slab.c. So changes in mm/slab.c cause all modules to be rebuilt because type information from mm/slab.c goes into all module files.
OK, so you're worried about the make dependencies problem, and not needlessly forcing a module to get recompiled when it doesn't need to be.
However, storing the information in a separate ELF section doesn't solve this, unless you actually have GCC generate the hash code. (If you store the hash code in slab.ver, you'd still have the same problem.) In fact, if you have GCC generate the hash code, it'd solve this problem whether the hash code is stored as part of the symbol name, or in a separate ELF section.
The problem with this, of course, is that we'd be dependent on a specially hacked version of GCC --- unless you can get these changes into the FSF's GCC mainline, which can sometimes be a trick. (Just ask the egcc people! :-)
- Ted
| |