Re: [dev] on a potential libc replacement

On May 26, 2009, at 8:50 PM, Szabolcs Nagy <nszabolcs_AT_gmail.com> wrote:

> 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..
>
Libc without syscalls is a stupid stub.

Libc is plenty of syscalls
> i feel this discussion became silly
Sure :)
>
>
Received on Tue May 26 2009 - 19:46:43 UTC