To: Kevin Read <kread@weihenstephan.org> Cc: From: David Murn <scuffer@hups.apana.org.au> Date: Sun, 13 Jul 1997 15:43:48 +1000 (EST) Newsgroups: linux.dev.8086 On Sat, 12 Jul 1997, Kevin Read wrote: > On Sat, 12 Jul 1997, Jorge Gonzalez wrote: > > > : Actually the program needn't call an interrupt, just a kernel function or > > : syscall, telling the kernel (or sash?) loader part to load to the next tag. > > [Excess punctuation removed to provide:] > > No!!! Please, not again! Micro$pit already made this mistake by putting in > > COMMAND.COM code which should have belonged to the kernel. Let's not make > > the same mistake again, ehhhh? Don't put anything in sash which belongs > > to the OS! What might happen if someone whishes to use another shell? Then the shell has to have the code then? > Ok, but how about putting that code into kernel? One idea, which might be a bit stupid, but anyway.. If we have a segment set aside, somewhere in memory. After the kernel starts up, it loads libc into that segment. When a program needs a function, say it needs 'open()', it can find the offset of that code, being in the libc segment. Jump to that code, and then return. Or, another idea I had, if, as we load the program in, we load the functions we want from the libs. So when the kernel loads a program in, say if it sees some opcode there then it'll expect some sortof pointer of where to load the function code from the library. If this doesn't make sense (either of them), I'll be more then willing to provide a more accurate description. Davey
From Unofficial Linux-8086 Mailing List Archive (ULMLA)
Maintained by Robert
Robert's Mailing List Archive Page
Archive created with babymail