What's the difference between arch-specific header files of uClib and those header files of linux kernel
Dave Dodge
dododge at dododge.net
Fri Mar 23 21:39:29 UTC 2007
On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 10:49:16PM +0100, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-03-23 15:16:59 -0500, Dave Dodge <dododge at dododge.net> wrote:
> > - Statically-linked programs would be seriously broken. Maybe this
> > is already the case and I just haven't noticed?
>
> Due to the syscalls-aren't-ever-removed and syscalls-don't-change
> constraints, static programs should just work.
Okay, that's what I thought. It sounded like you were originally
saying that existing syscalls (at the kernel-libc boundary) could
vanish or change their APIs on a whim.
I seem to recall that back in the day Sparc/Solaris did break their
kernel-libc boundary from time to time, which meant that applications
needed to dynamically link libc if you wanted them to keep working
after a system update.
> > I think I ran into this myself a few years ago when an application
> > needed futex support that was available (backported) in the kernel
> > but not in libc.
>
> :-) This is where the private fun of local helper libraries, own
> header files and _syscallX begins!
It's even more fun when -- as in my futex case -- the vendor's own
manpages documenting their backport and how to call it directly don't
actually match their kernel code >:-/.
-Dave Dodge
More information about the uClibc
mailing list