![]() | ||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Thu, 19 Dec 2002 bart@etpmod.phys.tue.nl wrote: > > True, but unless I really don't get it, compatibility of a new static > binary with an old kernel is going to break anyway. NO. The current code in 2.5.x is perfectly able to be 100% compatible with binaries even on old kernels. This whole discussion is _totally_ pointless. I solved all the glibc problems early on, and Uli is already happy with the interfaces, and they work fine for old kernels that don't have a clue about the new system call interfaces. WITHOUT any new magic system calls. WITHOUT any stupid SIGSEGV tricks. WITHOUT and silly mmap()'s on magic files. > My point was that the double-mapped page trick adds no overhead in the > case of a static binary, and just one extra mmap in case of a shared > binary. For _zero_ gain. The jump to the library address has to be indirect anyway, and glibc has several places to put the information without any mmap's or anything like that. Linus - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | |||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 12:31 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | ||||||||||