This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Official Linux system wrapper library?
- From: David Newall <glibc at davidnewall dot com>
- To: Florian Weimer <fweimer at redhat dot com>, Daniel Colascione <dancol at google dot com>
- Cc: "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk dot manpages at gmail dot com>, linux-kernel <linux-kernel at vger dot kernel dot org>, Joel Fernandes <joelaf at google dot com>, Linux API <linux-api at vger dot kernel dot org>, Willy Tarreau <w at 1wt dot eu>, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka at suse dot cz>, Carlos O'Donell <carlos at redhat dot com>, "libc-alpha at sourceware dot org" <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2018 00:41:05 +1030
- Subject: Re: Official Linux system wrapper library?
- References: <CAKOZuesB4R=dCz4merWQN0FSCGrXmOgUUr4ienSbStBJguNv8g@mail.gmail.com> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <CAKOZues5SEESpJU=6MDTrPXTA1KTZFGNQE4Lw4t0fO-WBTU62w@mail.gmail.com> <email@example.com> <CAKOZuetdgk1QYhx1538-98rFpogMin=8DkPnCtU9_=ip23Vk7w@mail.gmail.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
On 24/11/18 12:04 am, Florian Weimer wrote:
But socketcall does not exist on all architectures. Neither does
getpid, it's called getxpid on some architectures.
I think it would be a poor approach to expose application developers to
these portability issues. We need to abstract over these differences at
a certain layer, and applications are too late.
Interesting. I think the opposite. I think exposing the OS's
interfaces is exactly what a c-library should do. It might also provide
alternative interfaces that work consistently across different
platforms, but in addition to, not instead of the OS interface.