🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <2283@watcgl.waterloo.edu>, kdmoen@watcgl.waterloo.edu (Doug Moen) writes:
> oster@dewey.soe.berkeley.edu.UUCP (David Phillip Oster) writes:
> ...concerning why the sumacc compiler is no good...
> >The authors of the compiler seem to be unaware that on a Macintosh
> >executable code can move while the program is running. Unlike all Macintosh
> >compilers, they generate position _dependent_ code, and have a funky
> >loader scheme to resolve non-relocatable references at program load
> >time. Eventually, the code moves, and all that position dependent code
> >points at never-neverland.
> 
> Sorry, but this sounds blatantly impossible.  If the code were to move
> while the program is running, then *all of the return addresses and
> function pointers on the stack would become invalid* and the program
> would crash, regardless of what compiler was used to create the program.
> 
> Now, I can see that maybe desk accessories might move around,
> *but not application programs*.

I think the reference to moveable code is that when a prgm is segmented, each
segment, except the main segment, is relocatable when and if loaded into
memory.  When anything in that segment is called, a jsr is made to the
jump table, which contains a jump to the actual procedure.  When there're}i
no references to procedures in that segment, it may be unloaded, and the
entry in the jump table would be replaced by a jmp to a routine which would
1. load in the segment and
2. finally call the original procedure desired.

I believe that is accurate, if not detailed.  It's been a while since I've
reviewed the info on the jump table...so, no promises.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Raymond Lau                      {allegra,philabs,cmcl2}!phri\
Big Electric Cat Public Unix           {bellcore,cmcl2}!cucard!dasys1!raylau
New York, NY, USA                               {sun}!hoptoad/
GEnie:RayLau   Delphi:RaymondLau   CIS:76174,2617
"Take it and StuffIt."