Date: Sat, 19 May 2012 23:26:11 +0200 From: Christian Neukirchen <chneukirchen@...il.com> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: gcc segfault at src/mman/mlockall.c Rich Felker <dalias@...ifal.cx> writes: > On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 02:51:23PM -0400, Kurt H Maier wrote: >> On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 08:43:33PM +0200, Jens Staal wrote: >> > > obase-musl still lacks a lot due to many legacy syscalls musl probably >> > > won't implement. >> > > >> > > -- >> > > Christian Neukirchen <chneukirchen@...il.com> http://chneukirchen.org >> > >> > Could libbsd help with those? >> >> Is it really worth adding on more and more cruft just to get a base >> system working? In my opinion it would be better to flesh out sbase >> or something like it. Requiring a compatibility shim for your core >> utilities sounds like a bad day waiting to happen. > > If there are really _syscalls_ not implemented, I'd be interested in > knowing what they are. Sorry, not syscalls; I mean BSD libc functions such as fts(3). -- Christian Neukirchen <chneukirchen@...il.com> http://chneukirchen.org
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.