[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 16:57:58 +0200
From: u-wsnj@...ey.se
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: musl on a different syscall layer?
An observation, NetBSD libc file looks about 50% bigger than musl
being used (via Linux ABI) on the same system.
I am also kind of put off by the NetBSD monolithic build environment,
musl seems much easier to handle independently of other components of
the OS than the NetBSD libc.
Wonder how big effort would be needed to adjust musl to be compilable
against the NetBSD native syscalls? Unlike Linux, *BSD kernels do not
promise the stability of the syscall interface, but in practice the
default compatibility level covers many kernel versions and looks almost
as stable as in Linux.
(Linux-ABI-only musl would probably always remain "slightly insufficient"
for using with OS-specific tools, when the OS is not Linux - as there
are syscalls which reflect the internals of the kernel and they hardly
can ever become represented via a foreign ABI)
How much in musl is fundamentally linux-specific, besides the low level
syscall interfacing? How feasible would it be to introduce multiple
"kernel flavour" targets?
Rune
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
