Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 09:41:08 -0700 From: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> To: Stephen Hurd <shurd@sasktel.net> Cc: Erich Dollansky <oceanare@pacific.net.sg>, freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: apple moving to x86 Message-ID: <08f9491eb6c370af2759c72c862a410e@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <42A8F923.90009@sasktel.net> References: <20050608212440.EDE1520F01@krell.webweaver.net> <42A7AAA6.7070608@pacific.net.sg> <42A7D3DB.9080300@sasktel.net> <732767b54cd8713b8b06e44ebfc9f791@FreeBSD.org> <42A8F923.90009@sasktel.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Jun 9, 2005, at 7:21 PM, Stephen Hurd wrote: > John Baldwin wrote: > >> >> On Jun 8, 2005, at 10:30 PM, Stephen Hurd wrote: >> >>> >>>> As there is FreeBSD port to the PowerPC and its peripherals, this >>>> machine will make a very interesting target for FreeBSD: combine >>>> the x86 code base with the PowerPC drivers and get a real hot >>>> machine. >>> >>> >>> The *really* hot machine is going to be the OSX ABI supported under >>> FreeBSD and running Aqua. I betcha this happens FAST. >> >> >> I doubt it would be fast at all if it even happens. Unlike Linux, >> svr4, and ibcs2, OS X is not just a POSIXish UNIX kernel. It also >> includes mach so there would have to be a lot of emulation to support >> that. OS X also tends to define its interface not at the kernel >> syscall level but at the library API level (from what I have heard), >> which means that it might require having custom versions of the base >> system frameworks ala Wine which would be an enormous amount of work. >> > But the ABI support is about emulating the kernel ABI, not about > emulating the kernel. Since the *nix userland is mostly FreeBSD > afaik, the ABI must be pretty darn close already. If the interface is > via libraries, that makes it MORE likely not less to happen fast... > unless I misunderstand something. ABI emulation doesn't replace the > libraries. You'd still need a copy of OSX to run OSX binaries that > used the shared libs (Just like all the other ABI emulations). Two things. First, OS X's kernel ABI includes things like Mach IPC, etc. that would require a good bit of code to emulate. Secondly, since OS X's ABI is at the library level, they are freer to change the kernel ABI within a 10.x "branch" making it harder to get an ABI that will work with all versions of Panther or Tiger for example. -- John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve" = http://www.FreeBSD.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?08f9491eb6c370af2759c72c862a410e>