Re: [dev] on a potential libc replacement

From: Kris Maglione <>
Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 15:17:22 -0400

On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 08:50:35PM +0200, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
>> There's no reason that signal(2) and raise(2) can't be
>> implemented in pure C, aside from the usual syscall machinery.
>> They're usually implemented as system calls.
>um i don't understand your point
>they cannot be implemented except with system calls (this was my point)
>pure c == ?
>i meant standard c, where there are no sys calls..

We've already agreed that system calls are operating system
specific. Aside from that, there's no special case for signal
handling, and no need of assembly language or "non-pure" C.

Kris Maglione
Are you quite sure that all those bells and whistles, all those
wonderful facilities of your so called powerful programming languages,
belong to the solution set rather than the problem set?
	--Edsger W. Dijkstra
Received on Tue May 26 2009 - 19:17:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Tue May 26 2009 - 19:24:01 UTC