Finally looked at taskset. Why is this in BusyBox?

Rob Landley rob at landley.net
Fri Jun 16 04:40:33 UTC 2006


On Friday 16 June 2006 12:14 am, walter harms wrote:
> it is not totaly crap.
> there are embedded system with smp. they are used for realtime picture/
> signal analysis. they have impressive performances.
>
> ntl i do not have such a system or have i anything to do with the code.
> move it to the misc section and make it selectable.

It is in miscutils, and it is selectable, and it was added without even asking 
me if it was a good thing to add, which always makes me feel better about 
things when I find out about them.  (There are embedded systems in airplane 
nose cones that run off of Lisp.  And they may run Linux, but Busybox isn't 
growing a lisp interpreter.)

My current gripe is that this code was checked in emitting a known warning, 
one with no obvious way to fix it.  It's printing an opaque type as if it was 
in integer, which it's not.  (Typecasting to an int there causes the build to 
break.  The compiler's probably throwing the entire structure on the stack 
due to the varargs.)  That's a sign of quality, that is.  That's a sign the 
code was really well thought-out before it went in.

I could do something like *((unsigned int *)(&thingy)) which is at least 
guaranteed to be consistent.  (Modulo endianness and word size and who knows 
what else.)  But I'd like to get back to the "what was the thought process 
behind this, please?"

> just my 2 cents,
>   walter

Rob
-- 
Never bet against the cheap plastic solution.



More information about the busybox mailing list