Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 10:13:48 -0700 (PDT) From: John Polstra <jdp@polstra.com> To: dnelson@emsphone.com Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: SVR4 Emulation [was Re: iBCS status?] Message-ID: <200006081713.KAA49356@vashon.polstra.com> In-Reply-To: <20000608120525.A183@dan.emsphone.com> References: <000a01bfcf7a$cc810330$1200a8c0@matt> <20000607224010.A29029@dan.emsphone.com> <200006081617.JAA49089@vashon.polstra.com> <20000608120525.A183@dan.emsphone.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In article <20000608120525.A183@dan.emsphone.com>, Dan Nelson <dnelson@emsphone.com> wrote: > > Hmm. So does this mean that SVR4-compliant programs must be > dynamically-linked? Yes. The specification says that statically-linked programs are not compliant. > Is there any recommendations on how an OS should supply an SVR4 libc > to an SVR4 application when the OS itself may not be SVR4-compliant? Theoretically, you wouldn't need any kernel-level emulation at all if you provided the right libc. But of course it's not really SVR4 you want to emulate -- it's UnixWare or OpenServer or something else that has lots of extra interfaces which are outside the ABI specification. Overall I think it's easier to use the vendor's libraries and do the emulation at the kernel level, as we do now. > And this doesn't address any libraries other than libc, I suppose? Right. > Sounds like trying to emulate "SVR4" in itself isn't sufficient. We > can still call the kld svr4.ko, but it's really doing SCO/SolarisX86 > syscall emulation. Yep. John -- John Polstra jdp@polstra.com John D. Polstra & Co., Inc. Seattle, Washington USA "Disappointment is a good sign of basic intelligence." -- Chögyam Trungpa To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200006081713.KAA49356>