Date: Mon, 23 Oct 1995 14:05:20 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> To: syssgm@devetir.qld.gov.au (Stephen McKay) Cc: swallace@ece.uci.edu, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, syssgm@devetir.qld.gov.au Subject: Re: SYSCALL IDEAS [Was: cvs commit: src/sys/kern sysv_msg.c sysv_sem.c Message-ID: <199510232105.OAA11752@phaeton.artisoft.com> In-Reply-To: <199510230953.TAA22795@orion.devetir.qld.gov.au> from "Stephen McKay" at Oct 23, 95 07:53:21 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> >We need a better way to handle these syscall subcodes (as SYSV calls 'em). > > Is it not true that this System V stuff can be written as library routines > that use BSD facilities such as mmap() and sockets? I would be happy to see > the effort expended this way so that I can keep my kernel free of such cruft. This assumes: 1) The SYSV code uses shared libraries 2) Someone (you?) has written library replacements so that real SYSV shared libraries need not be used 3) No one is interested in running statically linked IBCS2 binaries, only dynamically linked ones. At present, I believe all of these are, in part or in whole, wrong. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199510232105.OAA11752>