Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 08:46:59 -0800 From: Arun Sharma <arun@sharmas.dhs.org> To: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Setting memory allocators for library functions. Message-ID: <20010228084659.A26909@sharmas.dhs.org> In-Reply-To: <3A9C9D11.854BCD5@elischer.org>; from julian@elischer.org on Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 10:39:13PM -0800 References: <200102260529.f1Q5T8413011@curve.dellroad.org> <200102261755.f1QHtvr34064@earth.backplane.com> <200102270624.WAA17949@c62443-a.frmt1.sfba.home.com> <3A9BAAF9.C75B39BF@elischer.org> <3A9C9CCC.4F9B521D@softweyr.com> <3A9C9D11.854BCD5@elischer.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 10:39:13PM -0800, Julian Elischer wrote: > no, something specifically designed around kernel type of actions. > declarations of "physical pointer", "kvm pointer" "User Pointer" > for example, and being able to declare a structure (not 'struct') > and say "this list is 'per process'" and have the list head > automatically in the proc struct > without haviong to add it there.. i.e backwards from today.. Rumor has it that MS has several compiler extensions, just for supporting their kernel. Some of what you say above could be built on top of the compiler, declaratively. Language support works well in cases where writing the same code by hand is tedious and error prone or down right ugly - like several hundred if (foo = null) return blah checks. -Arun To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010228084659.A26909>