> glibc has now been around so long that people have already forgotten how
> horrified some people were about the startup costs. Nobody compares it to
> the old silly fixed-address a.out libraries.
Your ability for discussions are deteriorating. How can you compare
a.out-style shared objects with ELF? Of course it has higher costs,
but this is fix the problems of the old implementation. You will
always have a bit higher costs, even in the best case.
> (No, the old scheme was bad, no question about that. But it was
> better than the current dynamic setup in some respects, no question
> about that either. And I think it should be technically possible to
> get the best of both worlds..)
Yes,
- but your syscall stuff has nothing at all to do with this. You are
now back to bitching about startup time and the usual complains about
the libc quality.
- and I'm already working (for some time) on changes to improve the
startup costs where you will only use the current mechanisms if
you are preloading or replace libraries. But to implement this I
have to start from ground up which means rewriting binutils and this
takes time. In the end you'll never see relocations being performed
unless you are preloading/changing libraries (where the situtation in
the later case can be rectified).
-- ---------------. drepper at gnu.org ,-. 1325 Chesapeake Terrace Ulrich Drepper \ ,-------------------' \ Sunnyvale, CA 94089 USA Cygnus Solutions `--' drepper at cygnus.com `------------------------- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/