Re: [dev] on a potential libc replacement

On 5/26/09, Kris Maglione <maglione.k_AT_gmail.com> wrote:
> That's exactly what I said. The basic system calls are defined
great, then i misunderstood you (or you misunderstood me)

> 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..

i feel this discussion became silly
Received on Tue May 26 2009 - 18:50:35 UTC