On Feb 8, 2006, at 5:51 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think the idea of matrix linking is quite different
You could have saved all the space and just said, yeah, but mine can
rebind printf. My response would be, yes, so can we. So, I've yet
to see much of a difference.
Mike, sorry for not answering.
I think the idea of matrix linking is quite different, let me try to
explain. I
would not say the matrix linking is the bynamic bunding, or rather to
say it is
not only the dynamic binding. Let us consider a sample:
void foo()
{
printf(foo\n);
}
int main(voi
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dear Mike, dear Sirs.
Thank you very much for the letter. The idea of runtime linking seems
to be
quite natural, therefore last half a year couple of time I thought
myself a
madman. I am glad to see your letter, it means if it be I am crazy I
am not
alone :-)
Natu
On Jan 18, 2006, at 10:24 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I thought some kind of that, yet moved to matrix approach. Reason?
The clarity.
Clarity is not an in-vogue reason for compiler code generation. Size
is, speed is. Sacrificing these two for clarity in generated code
limits the end res
Dear Mike, dear Sirs.
Thank you very much for the letter. The idea of runtime linking seems to be
quite natural, therefore last half a year couple of time I thought myself a
madman. I am glad to see your letter, it means if it be I am crazy I am not
alone :-)
Close to the matter. Let me summariz
Beg your pardon, I lost the CC.
regards.
- Forwarded message from [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 02:16:10 -0600
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: matrix linking
To: Sean Callanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Dear Sean.
Thank yo
In short, you are proposing that instead of linking an executable, it
be made into a bunch of shared libraries. The function calls between
these shared libraries be arbitrated by a "dispatcher" which can
dynamically reroute function calls.
There already exists a technique to do this if you
