Date: Fri, 17 Mar 1995 20:06:27 -0800 From: David Greenman <davidg@Root.COM> To: "Rodney W. Grimes" <rgrimes@gndrsh.aac.dev.com> Cc: CVS-commiters@freefall.cdrom.com, cvs-sys@freefall.cdrom.com Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/libkern locc.c random.c scanc.c skpc.c libkern.h Message-ID: <199503180406.UAA00419@corbin.Root.COM> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 17 Mar 95 19:58:50 PST." <199503180358.TAA20189@gndrsh.aac.dev.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>> NOT! IMNSHO, copying files out of libc for the kernel is extremely evil.
>
>That was what Berkeley intended when they did this, if you have doubts go
>read /usr/src/lib/libc/Makefile, targets libkern:, libkern.gen, and
>libkern.${MACHINE}... the one of real interest here is:
Did I say I had any doubt? No, I'm quite aware of this. I just happen not
to agree with it. I was *shocked* when I first heard about it last year, and
I remain incredulous.
It's bad enough that we have a libkern in the first place, and it's a lot
worse that it has all of these contortions. I personally prefer to know
exactly what is going to be in the kernel and find it more than a little
obnoxious to have an unknown set of .o's included out of libkern.a, and quite
evil for the sources to come out of libc. I'm willing to live with the pot-luck
.o's, but I'm not willing to live with them coming from libc.
-DG
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199503180406.UAA00419>