[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: status of l4-hurd
From: |
Michael Hohmuth |
Subject: |
Re: status of l4-hurd |
Date: |
03 Sep 2001 03:25:34 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.0807 (Gnus v5.8.7) XEmacs/21.1 (Channel Islands) |
Farid Hajji <address@hidden> writes:
> > Porting glibc to L4 is the best option I think. It's possible to do that
> > from L4Linux to make testing easier. See also Niels his reaction on this
> > subject.
> I partly disagree with Niels here. If you manage to port glibc to L4,
> that'll be fine with me. But don't forget that L4Linux's glibc is an
> adapted port of a Linux-based glibc. This is _not_ a native L4 glibc
> that provides anothing remotely resembling the support for Hurd/Mach
> currently present in glibc. Everyting in (the backend of) glibc's
> L4Linux heavily relies upon the l4linux server. Its exactly the same
> approach that is used in the Lites emulation library in the BSD-case.
I just wanted to remind you that L4Linux is binary-compatible with
Linux, and that includes compatibility with an _unmodified_ Linux
glibc (with the int 0x80 system-call interface). We usually use the
off-the-shelf Linux glibc that came with out Linux distribution, not
one that has been ported to L4 or L4Linux.
However, there is a port of glibc to L4Linux that replaces the "int
0x80" with a direct call into the emulation library (which is mapped
in all user processes and IPCs the L4Linux server) -- effectively
emulating the effect of "int 0x80" on L4Linux. This version saves the
cost of a trampoline call (an extra trap into the microkernel). (In
other words, that's the version we use for benchmarks. ;-)
Michael
--
address@hidden, address@hidden
http://home.pages.de/~hohmuth/
- Re: status of l4-hurd,
Michael Hohmuth <=