On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 01:07:53AM +0000, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 00:22:36 +0000 Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > | another good reason is that since the segment cannot be mapped > | readonly, the memory cannot be shared across multiple processes ... > | each will need to have its own copy, thus wasting what could be > | significant memory resources. > > Again, that's a big "could be".
it's more often an "is be" considering the fact we're talking about shared library code here. > We don't avoid marking stable code > that, say, mallocs lots of space, then fills it with some calculated > numbers (for example, the first million prime numbers), even though a > better program would allow for that data to be shared. no one said that broken code with TEXTRELs cannot be marked stable they're something to be fixed down the road as time permits > Oh, and don't accept reasons like "but they don't work if we enable > $obscure_voodoo in the compiler" either. If $obscure_voodoo breaks on > legitimate TEXTRELs then $obscure_voodoo is broken, not the code using > TEXTRELs. majority of the time, if a build process is generating poor code with textrels, it wont work on most architectures. x86 just tends to be pretty lenient when it comes to poor code, so no one notices/cares. -mike -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
