lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2000]   [Oct]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [Criticism]C++ Flamewar
Keith Owens wrote:
[...]
> 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.
>
If you want libg++ in kernel modules, create a libg++ module. All
c++ modules may then use that module. This is effectively dynamic
linking, kernel style.

I prefer C, though.

Helge Hafting
-
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:0.113 / U:5.476 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site