From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] dhog the corruptor!
In-Reply-To: Message from anothy@cosym.net
   of "Tue, 13 Nov 2001 17:53:45 EST." <20011113225401.E945C199B9@mail.cse.psu.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <24453.1005692369@apnic.net>
From: George Michaelson <ggm@apnic.net>
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 08:59:29 +1000
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 21a62b1c-eaca-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025


One thing I've often wondered about is why dynamic linking methods leave
the indirect call around. I discussed this with a smarter person and he
seemed to think the cost of walking the machinecode to find out the base
call, and write in the binary the direct references was too high.

But surely for inner-loop code, or critical frequent call code, it would
be worth avoiding call(indirect-lookup(real-function-name(args...))) all
the time?

So would a plan9 with dynamic linkage live with stacks of indirection or
does it straight-path to the real code?

cheers
	-George
--
George Michaelson       |  APNIC
Email: ggm@apnic.net    |  PO Box 2131 Milton QLD 4064
Phone: +61 7 3367 0490  |  Australia
  Fax: +61 7 3367 0482  |  http://www.apnic.net