[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKpSnpKpzpkZwauRKODsp4Y=oYGW_59rGTYLVGTNpZF7GV5jdA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2015 09:51:35 -0700
From: Jorge Almeida <jjalmeida@...il.com>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Re: linux/vt.h
On Sat, Oct 3, 2015 at 9:42 AM, Laurent Bercot <ska-dietlibc@...rnet.org> wrote:
> On 03/10/2015 15:01, Jorge Almeida wrote:
>>
>> Good question. Conventional wisdom states that one must keep the
>> headers glibc was compiled against, not the headers of the current
>> kernel, but the why is never explained.
>
>
> AIUI, it's a question of ABI. Your applications are linked against
> the libc, not against the kernel: it's important for applications
> and the libc to have the same definitions, else there's no guarantee
> they'll work together. Whereas the kernel/userspace ABI is supposed
> to be stable, so it's not supposed to matter if the current kernel
> has different headers than the ones the libc was compiled against.
> Other people will correct me if I'm wrong.
>
Hi Laurent
I understand that part. Stability of the ABI is a big deal for Linus,
if I understand correctly. But one reads about "sanitized headers",
and it's the "sanitized" vs. headers pure and simple that I don't
understand.
Jorge
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.
