> On 24 Jan 1999 20:37:39 -0800 
>  cgd@netbsd.org (Chris G. Demetriou) wrote:
> 
>  > It's not clear to me that it's appropriate to have the loadable
>  > modules be .so's (implying to me PIC) rather than .o's (not PIC).
>  > 
>  > The savings of PIC objects don't buy you much: you're only going to be
>  > using one copy at a time, you're not going to be paging 'text' bits of
>  > them back to the original file, etc.  On the other hand, on most
>  > architectures, PIC code has at least some additional execution time
>  > and/or code size when compared to non-PIC code.
> 
> hm, true enough... I think I was thinking ".so" just because my brain
> was locked in "dynamic linker" thinking mode.
> 
Sequence ordering:

1) Drink morning coffee.
2) Read and answer mail.

;-)

> Other than this nit, what about the rest of my comments? :-)
> 
When thinking a little bit more about this, it seems that it is the
best way to go. 

There are a bunch of design issues here that must be adressed also for
a generic module call system; like parameter passing to already loaded
modules etc... more about that later.

-- Ragge