|
From: Julian S. <js...@ac...> - 2005-06-26 01:50:40
|
[to continue an old discussion ..] >On Saturday 02 April 2005 00:32, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > Nicholas Nethercote wrote: > > And then we wouldn't need dlopen() at all, right? > > Well, we'd still need it to get stage2 into the right place, unless we > can use some linker magic to get it there first shot; I've tried doing > this before, but its very hard to get right, and extremely hard to make > it work over a wide range of toolchain versions (and that's just > binutils). Suppose stage2 is statically linked, including the relevant tool, and is linked to load at some non-standard address, the latter as at present. Then there would be no need for stage1 at all, and no need for address space padding/unpadding. Is that correct? J |