From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/6164 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: u-wsnj@aetey.se Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: musl on a different syscall layer? Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 20:02:22 +0200 Message-ID: <20140917180222.GL25738@example.net> References: <20140917145758.GI25738@example.net> <20140917175346.GB23797@brightrain.aerifal.cx> Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1410976975 8610 80.91.229.3 (17 Sep 2014 18:02:55 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 18:02:55 +0000 (UTC) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-6177-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Wed Sep 17 20:02:49 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org Original-Received: from mother.openwall.net ([195.42.179.200]) by plane.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1XUJZ1-0002v2-U9 for gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org; Wed, 17 Sep 2014 20:02:48 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 3961 invoked by uid 550); 17 Sep 2014 18:02:47 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Original-Received: (qmail 3953 invoked from network); 17 Sep 2014 18:02:47 -0000 X-T2-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50 Received-SPF: none receiver=mailfe05.swip.net; client-ip=194.150.168.95; envelope-from=u-wsnj@aetey.se Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140917175346.GB23797@brightrain.aerifal.cx> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:6164 Archived-At: On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 01:53:46PM -0400, Rich Felker wrote: > The main requirement is having equivalent functionality available. On > the BSD targets I've asked BSD folks about, there's supposedly no > equivalent of futex except inthe Linux compat layer, which is pretty > much a show-stopper unless/until it can be remedied. clone is a big > unknown to me too. The other big potential problem is if the native > syscall API requires a stack to communicate with the kernel (one or > more BSDs require this, IIRC), since at least __unmapself needs to be > able to call SYS_munmap and SYS_exit without a stack. Oh I see. This means "not much to hope for" (pity but good to know). Thanks Rich. Rune