[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
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[1]
>> 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.
