From: groepaz (groepaz_at_gmx.net)
Date: 2002-04-24 13:54:58
Hello Ullrich, Wednesday, April 24, 2002, 1:50:10 PM, you wrote: UvB> On Wed, Apr 24, 2002 at 01:38:39PM +0200, Adam Dunkels wrote: >> I can only agree with groepaz - cool! This would make it easier to support >> dynamic applications in uIP as well! UvB> Yes. But as I said before, writing modules in C has some overhead. The reason UvB> for this is that the loader does not use the symbols from the o65 file for UvB> runtime linking, because of the overhead. By using import/export name tables, UvB> it would be possible to link a C module so that it uses the runtime routines >>from the main module. But this would require a large name table in the UvB> application, because the application must know at runtime, which functions >>from the runtime library are available and at which address. Both operating UvB> systems using the o65 format (OS/A65 and Lunix) don't do that for the same UvB> reason (too much overhead). UvB> Instead of using dynamic linking by name, modules are supposed to have a jump UvB> table at the start address of the code segment - I think we can live with UvB> that, especially for drivers, which will have a fixed set of API functions UvB> anyway. UvB> So a loaded module written in C must contain all the runtime stuff by itself, UvB> even if the same routines are also linked to the main program. This will lead UvB> to some overhead (how much this is exactly depends on the module in question). aint going to be THAT much of a problem though i'd guess... like you said, anything that can be considered "driver" wouldnt suffer much, and anything else would be a special-case anyway (somehow ;=P) -- Best regards, groepaz mailto:groepaz_at_gmx.net ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list send mail to majordomo_at_musoftware.de with the string "unsubscribe cc65" in the body(!) of the mail.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : 2002-04-24 13:55:46 CEST