[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 16:16:13 +0200
From: Szabolcs Nagy <nsz@...t70.net>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Using unistd functions vs calling syscall straight in the
code
* Murali Vijayaraghavan <vmurali@...il.mit.edu> [2012-08-10 21:47:59 +0900]:
> You guys do have a unistd implementation which supposedly implements each
> of the system calls. But you are not consistent with the use of these
> functions to perform the unistd-implemented tasks. Wouldn't it be a lot
> cleaner to call these functions instead of calling syscall / syscall_cp
> directly from the other (top-level) functions? Was there some rationale or
> is it just code evolution?
>
i don't understand the question
can you show with an example what do you mean?
calling a libc function is not the same as using a linux
syscall, and there is usually a reason why one is used
instead of the other..
(the first has posix semantics the second has whatever
semantics linux have, even if these happen to be compatible
then the first one creates an extra call and an extra
internal dependency when static linking is used)
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.
