[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Checking for ET_EXEC
|
From: |
Yoshinori K. Okuji |
|
Subject: |
Re: Checking for ET_EXEC |
|
Date: |
Wed, 19 Dec 2001 20:46:42 +0900 |
|
User-agent: |
Wanderlust/2.6.0 (Twist And Shout) SEMI/1.14.3 (Ushinoya) FLIM/1.14.3 (Unebigoryoae) APEL/10.3 Emacs/20.7 (i686-pc-linux-gnu) MULE/4.0 (HANANOEN) |
At Mon, 17 Dec 2001 16:37:08 -0800,
address@hidden wrote:
> I do think Rayiner's point is legitimate in the sense that it gives
> an easy way to do sharing with core kernel code and not linking to
> a fixed address.
Because you are the one who has written the code, I don't object too
much, if you think the check should be removed. But I can't still
understand how useful that is. If the kernel complies to the Multiboot
Spec, its address has to be fixed anyway, doesn't it? Maybe I'm
missing something.
Okuji