Re: load and use a ".o" file?

["Robert I. Eachus" <rieachus@comcast.net>]

Mark H Johnson wrote:

> Robert I. Eachus wrote:
> 
>> Technically not correct.  The compiler could "in line" some local 
>> calls, but the binder couldn't. 
> 
> I did not mention the binder (which in many ways I equate to having a 
> linker on Unix), just the compiler.

I was not trying to be confrontational or whatever.  My point was, that 
in segments created by the binder, all that was done was to provide a 
(static, code-relative)target for the call.  It didn't change the 
calling code at all.  So if you had a program compiled as a collection 
of separate segments, and ran it that way, the first time each entry 
point was used, the link was snapped, and from then on you had no 
additional run-time overhead.  If you used the binder, it eliminated 
some of the run-time link snapping, but the code was exactly as 
efficient as if it had been compiled from one huge source file.

> Me to. That is why I described that mechanism in terms the OP would 
> likely understand in a previous message.

I still miss Multics.  I had accounts on several Multics machines when I 
worked at Honeywell.  When I moved to Stratus, even though Stratus was a 
'spritual' descendent of Multics, I kept an account on MIT_Multics.  (I 
had some Multics PL/I tools I wanted to port to VOS.)  But it has been 
fifteen years now, and I still don't have a development environment as 
good as Multics.

However, Ada is now a much better language than PL/I. ;-)

-- 
                                           Robert I. Eachus

"The war on terror is a different kind of war, waged capture by capture, 
cell by cell, and victory by victory. Our security is assured by our 
perseverance and by our sure belief in the success of liberty." -- 
George W. Bush