Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2012 10:36:58 +0400 From: croco@...nwall.com To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: static linking and dlopen Hi folks, On Sat, Dec 08, 2012 at 03:17:09PM -0800, Charlie Kester wrote: > I wonder if most of what people want to do with dlopen couldn't be done > just as well (or better) with good old fork() and exec(), along with > some suitable interprocess communication. The thing I recalled right off, is that, e.g., interpreters of Tcl are able to load C-written functions to extend the functionality of the interpreter (e.g. with a domain-specific set of functions), and this is done with dlopen. I think Tcl is not the only interpreter doing so. I even used the same technique in one of my works (it was an interpreter of (small subset of) Lisp, extendable in the same way). Well, may be this (in theory) can be done with fork/exec, with some protocol on the pipes, etc., but as for me, I would never use such a solution, preferring to keep the interpreter non-extendable: having library functions' implementations in an external process conflicts with my sense of aesthetics :-) IMHO, for some (monstrous) programs such as browsers, or Gimp, or whatever alike, having all the dynamic linking logic inside is not a catastrophe, because the catastrophe is their size as such. For interpreters, the catastrophe is the fact of interpreted execution, and dlopen will add next to nothing to it. Anyway, for a lot of existing programs, the absense of dlopen will mean a necessity for heavy rewritings in order to compile them with musl - perhaps too heavy to be done at all. P.S. thank you for the great work you do! -- Cheers, Croco
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.