Re: Dynamic Address Clauses??

[markb@sdcrdcf.UUCP]

In article <5140@nsc.nsc.com> rfg@nsc.UUCP (Ron Guilmette) writes:
<... however a very similar construction has disturbed me deeply,
<to wit:
<       procedure P;
<       for P use at DYNAMIC;
<For a true embedded system, I can understand that one may want to fix certain
<routines at certain places via:
<       procedure P;
<       for P use at STATIC;
<However I cannot envision any case in which dynamic relocation of routines
<WHILE THE PROGRAM IS RUNNING would be of any benefit.  I can however
<predict that such a capability might be an implementor's nightmare.
<Note that 13.5(5) seem to allow (and now perhaps require?) such a
<capability in all implementations!  Wow!

A good reason to allow this is multic-like dymanic procedure linking.
A side effect of the routine DYMANIC may be to load the code you wish
to run via the name P into memory and then return its address.

Mark Biggar
{allegra,burdvax,cbosgd,hplabs,ihnp4,akgua,sdcsvax}!sdcrdcf!markb
markb@rdcf.sm.unisys.com