How is OS4 ?

[itix]

Well, thanks to it I can do one thing now that previously I couldn't on OS4... why shouldn't I praise it?

Varthall

Out of interest, what is it? :-)

[itix]

@utri007

Or maybe OS4 users are shy and comment only OS4 threads?

[itix]

@karlos

On the other hand, you can take an already tried and tested C++ standard library and statically link it to your application. Which is fine. However, with .so files you can defer that until runtime.

Which saves disk space (precious resource these days ;-)) but apparently on Amiga it is not possible make shared objects shared.

Concurrency obviously is not problem on Amiga. Exceptions could probably work with some stub code. After all C++ libraries are always more or less compiler specific.

But tools to extract manged C++ names are missing indeed. Maybe I should look into it some day...

[itix]

@karlos

I was thinking more of the benefits of being able to change .so files independently of the applications that use them.

You can have this with libraries, too. Of course they have to used different name always.

Before anybody starts, the current implementation has been designed to allow linkage against different versions of a .so provided all of the symbols that the originally linked version provided still exist (older gcc implementations didn't do this very well and the whole shebang was reworked).

So, other than saving disk space, you also get to be able to replace your regular libvorbis.so with an altivec tuned one perhaps. Or at least that's the theory.

But is this different to libraries...? I am developing SDL for MorphOS and when I am trying new AltiVec optimization I only replace old powersdl.library in LIBS: and try different SDL games with it.

The current OS4 shared object implementation limitation is that .so files are not opened and shared in memory the way .library files are. Whether that remains the case in future versions remains to be seen.

I havent investigated this topic very much but to my understanding to .so object sharing can not work in a shared address space model. The problem is, as I see it, relocating data sections.

[itix]

I guess you mean thread? Because this forum has been for all amiga and alternative amiga platforms for ages now.

But yeah i find it irritating as well, but i guess people who cheer for the "underdog" often act like that.
I have yet to see OS4 users posting in MOS threads just to spread FUD about the platform.

You surely dont read ANN (when it was alive) or amiga-news.de ;-)

[itix]

Personally I think the biggest objection to .so files in OS4 are mostly aesthetic in the "Not Invented Here" sense. They are seen as an alien system that has been incorporated into the OS. I actually think that's rather silly seeing as we all decided long ago that ELF was a sensible format and gcc was to be our preferred compiler system. Shared objects are simply something useful that you can readily use from that combination, so why not?

#?.so fits nicely with my GeekGadgets development environment but I dont see use on Amiga side.

[itix]

@drHirudo

I dont think OS4 is only Amiga API compatible with .so support, thank you very much