Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 16 Oct 2000 11:49:14 -0500 | From | Timur Tabi <> | Subject | Re: [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/
| |