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