lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1998]   [Nov]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: 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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:45    [W:0.091 / U:0.372 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site