[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150801112449.GF22829@example.net>
Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2015 13:24:50 +0200
From: u-wsnj@...ey.se
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Re: Using direct socket syscalls on x86_32 where
available?
On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 11:47:46PM -0400, Rich Felker wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 01, 2015 at 03:32:08AM +0000, Brad Conroy wrote:
> > Using system definitions will ensure the system supports the defined syscalls.
> > This will provide an automatic path for future architectures to do the same.
> Having behavior that depends on the kernel which was present at the
> time libc was built is utterly broken.
+1
(as well as generally making any assumption that the compilation and
runtime environments are and remain related - through the life time of
the binary, in all of its lives on multiple computers)
A different thing would be compilation of the C library on demand
(say with something like tcc) and discarding at reboot.
In comparison, compilation in advance and reuse seem to be much more
efficient and manageable. That's why we have got a pretty stable kernel
ABI, after all. (The same goes about a stable libc ABI versus the
applications which musl also does right, thanks Rich)
Rune
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.
