From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: (from weis@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id PAA09223 for caml-redist; Wed, 26 Apr 2000 15:39:54 +0200 (MET DST)
Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id OAA29139 for <caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr>; Wed, 26 Apr 2000 14:19:44 +0200 (MET DST)
Received: from nef.ens.fr (nef.ens.fr [129.199.96.32])
	by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA11585
	for <caml-list@inria.fr>; Wed, 26 Apr 2000 14:19:43 +0200 (MET DST)
Received: from clipper.ens.fr (clipper-gw.ens.fr [129.199.1.22])
          by nef.ens.fr (8.10.1/1.01.28121999) with ESMTP id e3QCJWU86976
          ; Wed, 26 Apr 2000 14:19:32 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from galion.ens.fr (george@galion [129.199.129.10]) by clipper.ens.fr (8.9.2/jb-1.1)
	id OAA01491 ; Wed, 26 Apr 2000 14:19:32 +0200 (MET DST)
Received: from (george@localhost) by galion.ens.fr (8.8.8/jb-1.1)
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 14:19:31 +0200
From: Nicolas GEORGE <nicolas.george@ens.fr>
To: caml-list@inria.fr
Cc: Vitaly Lugovsky <vsl@ontil.ihep.su>
Subject: Re: Dynamic link
Message-ID: <20000426141931.A13765@galion.ens.fr>
References: <20000422105001.A16369@galion.ens.fr> <Pine.LNX.4.10.10004261524330.24392-100000@ontil.ihep.su>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Mailer: Mutt 0.96i
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10004261524330.24392-100000@ontil.ihep.su>; from Vitaly Lugovsky on Wed, Apr 26, 2000 at 03:28:26PM +0400
Sender: weis

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.