From: Robert Dailey (rcdailey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-07-14 10:30:29
On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 12:02 PM, Jeremy Pack <rostovpack_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Could you be a little bit more specific as to what you'd like? What is the
> exact use case?
> When a shared library is loaded, it is shared by all processes using it. It
> is also unloaded in the way memory can be handled by a garbage collecter -
> some time after all references to it have been removed.
> As such, the first process to load it is, in effect, buffering it into
> memory, and other processes can then load it very cheaply.
> As far as loading it directly from a memory buffer, that would require
> copying a bunch of routines from the platform-specific functions that fix
> pointer references, function references, type information etc. within a
> shared library when it is loaded.
> If you're sending shared libraries over a network connection between
> computers, I can see how this might possibly be more optimal. But if you're
> shooting to make your program that heavily optimized, I'd recommend
> language :)
> So, yes, it is possible. No, I don't think it is worth attempting.
Thanks for responding Jeremy.
My use case was simple. I would receive a DLL in memory over a network, and
instead of first writing it to a file and THEN opening it, I was hoping I
could just read it from memory as if it were a file. However, I've found out
that I no longer need to do this. I'll first be writing it to a file, so
this feature would no longer be needed.
Thanks for emphasizing a few good points about this, it's probably best to
keep it on the file system.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk