Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2018 01:12:56 +0200 From: Alexander Revin <lyssdod@...il.com> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: musl on a different syscall layer? > On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 7:02 PM, <u-wsnj@...ey.se> wrote: >> On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 01:53:46PM -0400, Rich Felker wrote: >>> The main requirement is having equivalent functionality available. On >>> the BSD targets I've asked BSD folks about, there's supposedly no >>> equivalent of futex except inthe Linux compat layer, which is pretty >>> much a show-stopper unless/until it can be remedied. clone is a big >>> unknown to me too. The other big potential problem is if the native >>> syscall API requires a stack to communicate with the kernel (one or >>> more BSDs require this, IIRC), since at least __unmapself needs to be >>> able to call SYS_munmap and SYS_exit without a stack. >> >> Oh I see. >> >> This means "not much to hope for" (pity but good to know). > I don't think NetBSD uses the stack for syscalls on any common > architecture, maybe on some of the obscure ones, but maybe you don't > want to support them. > > Adding futex support to NetBSD would be an interesting project; it is > not in the compat layer at present either, so that is a good reason to > add it. NetBSD is pretty friendly... > > Justin (justin@...bsd.org) Hi guys, sorry for reviving a dead thread, but do you know if things has changed ever since? I'm asking also because it would be nice to unify efforts of porting musl to another archs - for example, openrisc or m68k - though there're ports for both Linux and NetBSD, libc support is kind of scattered over large codebase. Best, Alex
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.