Re: /usr/include/linux and stuff

["Stephen J. Turnbull" <nospam [at] sk.tsukuba.ac.jp>]

>>>>> "Alastair" == Alastair Donlon <adonlon [at] netsoc.ucd.ie> writes:

    Alastair> So, the movement for glibc grew - kernel people would
    Alastair> maintain the kernel headers and glibc people would
    Alastair> maintain their own set of 'kernel interface' headers.

    Alastair> Glibc then only really needs to be changed if the kernel
    Alastair> alters its own interface (mostly through the system
    Alastair> calls). In theory, if the interface to the kernel
    Alastair> changes, then it should be released as a new major
    Alastair> number and all bets are off anyway ;)

I don't really see how this differs from what I wrote, except for the
more optimistic skew.  The problem that can still arise with glibc is
that the kernel still uses macros (it's written in C, after all) for
things that really ought to be types or inline function calls.  This
is unavoidable AFAICT.

Agreed, things were much worse with H. J. Liubc, but there still are
risks for programs that use both direct interfaces to the kernel and
glibc (such as POSIX calls) interfaces.

Am I missing something?

-- 
University of Tsukuba                Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences       Tel/fax: +81 (298) 53-5091
_________________  _________________  _________________  _________________
What are those straight lines for?  "XEmacs rules."
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Sheffield Linux User's Group - http://www.sheflug.co.uk
To unsubscribe from this list send mail to
- <sheflug-request [at] vuw.ac.nz> - with the word 
 "unsubscribe" in the body of the message. 

  GNU the choice of a complete generation.