Re: Dynamic link

[Nicolas GEORGE <nicolas.george@ens.fr>]

Le mercredi 26 avril 2000, Vitaly Lugovsky a écrit :
> > I agree with that, as long as you are root on your computer, to install the
> > new "fat" runtime each time you add a new library.
>  What for? Why unprivileged user can't install'em in his own 
> LD_LIBRARY_PATH? Or, if there is a group of users, e.g. "mlusers",
> there can be a group writable directory for a shared libraries.

I've said root to be quick. What I meant was: "the same as the owner of the
compiler". Of course, every user can install his own version of the
run-time, with all the libraries, but that's exactly the problem. And
another problem is when you want to install a small application somewhere.
You won't rebuild a new run-time with the library, that's too heavy.

>  It'll be as safe as normal static link can be. Or I just can't understand
> something...

I wonder your method. Static link is checked by the compiler. My dynamic
link patch don't change anything as it does not bring any semantics more.
Explicit loading (that what is wanted, or did I bad understand?) of a C
primitive is something totally different, and rarely useful.

But as I re-read the mail, I see another interpretation. And here, I agree
that it would be useful. But I fear this would require a very large change
in the bytecode structure, because, as far as I have seen, the primitive is
stored as its index in the primitive table of the run-time.