shared lib ...

[Gene H. Olson]

In article <4121 at islenet.UUCP> you write:
>There have been several different scripts posted lately that
>automate the process or compiling and linking programs with
>the shared library.  The more recent ones extract some routines
>that weren't defined in the shared lib and link them separately
>to keep the resultant binaries as small as possible.
>
>My question is; why not find the missing routines within the
>shared library and add the to your shlib.ifile?  Since most
>of the missing routines are called from other routines that
>are listed in shlib.ifile then they must be in there.  (_doprnt,
>for instance is at tbase+0x18a34.)

I remember from reading the doco on 5.3 shared libraries, that
careful hacking of the source code was required to make up for
inherent deficiencies in the shared library implementation.

Reference "The UNIX System 5 Programmers Manual" Section 8,
"Shared Libraries", Pages 8-30 -> 8-32 "Changing Existing Code
for the Shared Libraries".

The 3B1 implementation appears to be different from the 5.3
implementation, probably it was a first hack that served as a
prototype for the 5.3 stuff.   At any rate it is probably more
difficult to achieve a reasonable shared library on the 3B1.

In the absence of source code for the libraries, it may be difficult
or impossible to add to the shared libraries.

Perhaps someone on the net can elaborate on the Convergent 3B1
implementation.

Gene H. Olson
gene at zeno.mn.org