Tim Peeler on Mon, 4 Jun 2001 14:00:09 -0400 |
On Mon, Jun 04, 2001 at 01:41:39PM -0400, gabriel rosenkoetter wrote: > On Mon, Jun 04, 2001 at 10:33:54AM -0400, Tim Peeler wrote: > > That's a good point, speed would be comprimised by doing numerous reads > > on the file, and that speed loss would be more than the 40 some odd bytes > > of the header. But you do have to agree that it would make revisions > > to the ELF format easier to implement. But there is also the fact that > > any new revisions shouldn't really increase the header that much anyway > > (what having to deal with 50 bytes instead of 40???), so I can see the > > point of using the structured approach. > > I don't know that the ELF header does, but this is the reason that > many structures within operating systems leave a few spare bytes > around or reuse bytes differently in later revisions. (True, > actually, even at the hardware design level.) It does, it's got room for improvement; 9 bytes extra. Tim ______________________________________________________________________ Philadelphia Linux Users Group - http://www.phillylinux.org Announcements-http://lists.phillylinux.org/mail/listinfo/plug-announce General Discussion - http://lists.phillylinux.org/mail/listinfo/plug
|
|