From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Date: Fri,  1 Aug 2008 02:26:26 -0700
From: "Roman V. Shaposhnik" <rvs@sun.com>
In-reply-to: <13426df10807311502o2bf0033ne3622512757427d9@mail.gmail.com>
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net>
Message-id: <1217582786.20626.42.camel@goose.sun.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
References: <13426df10807311502o2bf0033ne3622512757427d9@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: [9fans] a question on style
Topicbox-Message-UUID: f9adfa2c-ead3-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 15:02 -0700, ron minnich wrote:
> OK, am I just out of date or is there a real reason for linker
> sets?This question just came up in linuxbios v3 and I am wondering if
> I am a stubborn old coot (likely) or if there really is merit to my
> dislike of linker sets.

I tend to dislike any kind of linker magic in user-space quite
profoundly. The most I can tolerate is PLT, I guess. But even
that is something I don't appreciate all that much when I need
to debug low level code. So I agree with you there 100%.

Now, on the other hand, I guess kernel is different though.
Isn't it supposed to be one huge piece of magic to begin with? ;-)

Thanks,
Roman.