lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2000]   [Oct]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [Criticism]C++ Flamewar
** Reply to message from Keith Owens <kaos@ocs.com.au> on Tue, 17 Oct 2000
00:43:58 +1100


> Interesting concept, linking a module with libg++. Would that be a
> dynamic or static link?
>
> If it is dynamic then you can absolutely forget about loading the
> module into the kernel, there is no way that modutils will ever support
> that. If it is a static link then every module has its own private
> copy of libg++, that would introduce more than a little kernel bloat.
> How big is a static copy of libg++ these days? The thought of two or
> more modules each with a static copy of libg++ but running in the same
> kernel address space gives me the shivers.

On OS/2, I was able to write the equivalent of libg++ for device drivers, and
the code was only a few hundred bytes (most of which were used for a heap
manager). All I did was recreate the few parts that I needed, and they were
extremely small.




--
Timur Tabi - ttabi@interactivesi.com
Interactive Silicon - http://www.interactivesi.com

When replying to a mailing-list message, please don't cc: me, because then I'll just get two copies of the same message.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:41    [W:0.099 / U:1.060 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site