[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: BSD libc or Glibc?

matthew green <mrg@eterna.com.au> writes:
>    So, we have to decide whatever we use native libc, or port glibc?
>    I have faced some issues during my sysvinit port (it's about 
>    50% done, so hold on :), that required me changing NetBSD's libc
>    header files (for example, utmp.h). 
>    So, let's decide, what are we going to use?
> what did you have to change in utmp.h?  that seems ... the wrong
> thing to do.  note that porting glibc includes all the machines
> that netbsd runs on (currently 44, across 12 CPU architectures).
> i don't think this will be an easy task.  i'm sure that _in the
> end_ you'll probably want to do this, but as it stands there are
> probably better things to work on.  libc is also highly tied to
> the kernel, due to the implementation of system calls.  note that
> to avoid having libc's major number bumped, that many standard
> system calls are "renamed" by header files, and that the real
> (modern) syscall is actually something like __fstat13().  this
> will require significant work, sometimes in MD code.

Indeed. I'd suggest that you'd be better off making a list of missing
functions and asking Matt and myself to get them integrated into
NetBSD's libc. It should be straightforward to do that.

Perry E. Metzger		perry@wasabisystems.com
NetBSD Development, Support & CDs. http://www.wasabisystems.com/

Reply to: