From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Jul 19 0:46:15 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from wenet.net (tibet-58.ppp.hooked.net [206.80.9.186]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DED30150D8 for ; Mon, 19 Jul 1999 00:46:10 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from garbanzo@hooked.net) Received: from localhost (garbanzo@localhost) by wenet.net (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id AAA01866; Mon, 19 Jul 1999 00:44:36 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from garbanzo@hooked.net) X-Authentication-Warning: zippy.dyn.ml.org: garbanzo owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 00:44:36 -0700 (PDT) From: Alex Zepeda To: Per Lundberg Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: glibc In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, Per Lundberg wrote: > I need a libc 100% compatible with glibc to make porting (from Linux) > easier. And, as a side note, I think both FreeBSD and Linux would benefit > of having compatible libc:s. I seriously doubt this will make porting any easier. 99% of the porting issues you'll run into, are from a.) lack of sys/types.h being included, or order of headers being included. b.) dependencies on Linux-specific ioctls or syscalls, such as clone, which are not really libc related. c.) dependencies on bugs in glibc. > Perhaps porting BSD libc to Linux would be easier? I doubt it. The glibc has been designed with portability in mind (hell, it's purported to run on Irix), FreeBSD's with security and speed. - alex What I am is what I am, What you are is what you are - Edie Brickell (ain't she profound?) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message