Re: L4 instead of gnumach?
On Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 07:18:48PM +0100, Erik Verbruggen wrote:
> > My concerns last time I looked at L4 was
> >
> > (i) It was written in C++, which I dislike (that's a religious
> > question, and this is not the right place to argue the details).
>
> Erm, ok, you took that implementation ("problem" with L4 on Intel is
> that there are actually 3 implementations). This is the better one in my
> opinion.
There are only two for x86 which have a free license, Fiasco and L4KA,
and both are in C++. The others are written in Assembler and have no
license we can use. For Alpha there is a free assembler impl, and for MIPS a
free C one. For StrongARM, L4KA is also available.
I don't know what API's are exported, though.
Marcus
--
`Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.' Debian http://www.debian.org brinkmd@debian.org
Marcus Brinkmann GNU http://www.gnu.org marcus@gnu.org
Marcus.Brinkmann@ruhr-uni-bochum.de
http://www.marcus-brinkmann.de
Reply to: