The moment someone starts calling other people names, I immediately assume they are at "I know everything" ...
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Is It Time To Overhaul The GNU Dynamic Linker?
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Raka555 View PostThe moment someone starts calling other people names, I immediately assume they are at "I know everything" ...
- Likes 4
Comment
-
Originally posted by rawr View Post
Also for linking at runtime i.e. dynamic linking?
As far as I know this is only for warning about shadowing variables. I am talking about functions during runtime linking
The latter (proj6) was what I wanted, the former (proj5) was what I was getting, along with a raft of unresolved symbol errors. Took me a while to sort it out -- if that's what I've actually done -- but the "shadows" clue was certainly a help.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Ironmask View Post
SxS absolutely isn't bloat, it's kind of the opposite. Instead of every application coming with their own DLLs whether any other application shares it or not, they can share the same DLL if it's the same version. It's like, a couple extra megabytes for some DLLs, this web page is probably larger than that. I've been waiting for the day Linux gets something like SxS, although I'm not holding my breathe. It really does seem like Flatpak is the future, as much of a brute force solution as it is.
Last time I was learning some basics about developing flatpak applications, I found there seems no way to add libraries that are not in the SDK as shared runtime.
It seems the only choice left is to bundle this library into the application.
The only solution in my mind is to extend flatpak to something close to a full-fledged distribution, and include a package manager.
Comment
-
Originally posted by andyprough View PostAnd who the hell are you? What are your great accomplishments that you can tell people what they can and can't say here? List them please, I'm waiting.
Its frankly f**ken annoying to have forum threads derailed all of the time because someone nitpicks on some stupid small unrelated point and make a massive deal about.
Talk about the article and not some stupid minor unrelated detail, i.e. video happens to be uploaded on youtube.
- Likes 2
Comment
-
Originally posted by mdedetrich View PostNo he is right.
(...)
Talk about the article and not some stupid minor unrelated detail, i.e. video happens to be uploaded on youtube.
tildearrow just made a observation related with the subject of the article, in concrete, with the uploading platform of the video..
And it was a valid observation( because there are still some places of the globe that still care with users privacy rights.. ).
And google is well known to brake any rules, in any privacy related concern and spying on people..
So his observation, apart from being subject related, was also right..
afaik, it was not tildearrow who derailed the subject of the article( but those who started a rant campaign against him.. )
Every person as the right to express herself,
You just need to accept other opinions, instead of starting personal attacks on certain people..
Comment
-
Originally posted by Ironmask View PostInteresting, I assumed he was a nobody himself. There's no good way for me to know that, though.
- Likes 2
Comment
-
Originally posted by mdedetrich View Post
No he is right.
Its frankly f**ken annoying to have forum threads derailed all of the time because someone nitpicks on some stupid small unrelated point and make a massive deal about.
Talk about the article and not some stupid minor unrelated detail, i.e. video happens to be uploaded on youtube.
Comment
-
The linker is vastly unappreciated and also misunderstood piece of technology. There are very few people who understand linking deep down on the planet.
On dynamic linking tho, I think the problem is bigger than just LD. This needs cross-language standardization, unified interface definitions and more work. I don't think it's going to happen tho.
- Likes 2
Comment
Comment