[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2018 23:37:45 +0100
From: ardi <ardillasdelmonte@...il.com>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com, jonathanchesterfield@...il.com
Subject: Re: Views on bare metal port
Hi,
I'm also in need of a libc whose syscall interface was easily
hook-able. Not knowing of any libc that has all the syscalls clearly
encapsulated (and encapsulated at the C level rather than at assembly
level), but considering the clean design of musl, I've chosen musl as
probably the best option. You can check the thread I started in the
list last Christmas: http://www.openwall.com/lists/musl/2017/12/21/3
ardi
On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 2:38 PM, Jon Chesterfield
<jonathanchesterfield@...il.com> wrote:
> Hello musl,
>
> I'm writing an llvm back end for a custom asic. There's no kernel, limited
> syscall support. As far as I can tell from the source tree, musl expects a
> host OS. I'm aware of a couple of projects running musl by emulating the
> Linux syscall interface.
>
> I would like to derive libc from a subset of musl. Math.h included,
> filesystem excluded. Malloc and threads tdb.
>
> Are there any bare metal projects that use musl without syscall emulation?
> If not, would one be of interest to this mailing list?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Jon
>
>
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.
