Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 1 Nov 1998 17:17:24 -0500 (EST) | From | Kenneth Albanowski <> | Subject | Re: unremovable files and possible fs corruption (2.1.123) |
| |
On Sun, 1 Nov 1998, Philip Blundell wrote:
> >Also, in my interpreter-evangelist hat, I'd like to be able to bind > >anything to anything else, at any level, which at some point means > >teaching an interpreter to talk directly to the kernel, without libc in > >the middle. This ought to be possible. > > It's certainly possible, but I don't really see what it buys you. All you're > doing is pushing some of the work that libc currently does into your > application. > > Why do you want to cut libc out of the loop? If you're concerned about code > size then the way forward is probably to work on making libc more modular so > that you can do away with the bits that you don't need, rather than chucking > the whole lot and starting again.
No, nothing like that. I was actually thinking more along the lines of FORTH, which tends to bypass layers, and the example provided by Java (which demonstrated invoking library functions directly, using dl_sym. Invoking syscalls directly is the next step.) I'm not saying I need this, or that anyone is going to need it any time soon, just that it should be a possibility. All that means is that the Linux syscall interface should be considered published.
-- Kenneth Albanowski (kjahds@kjahds.com, CIS: 70705,126)
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |