Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 07:06:49 -0500 (EST) From: Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com> To: "Kenneth D. Merry" <ken@kdm.org> Cc: arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: sbufs in userland Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1010226070300.26127A-100000@pcnet1.pcnet.com> In-Reply-To: <20010226003319.A19994@panzer.kdm.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Kenneth D. Merry wrote: > 2. If we do put sbufs in userland, what is the best way to do it? > There are three different ways I can think of: > > - Put sbufs in some existing library, or in a specially > created library, i.e. "libsbuf" or something like that. > > The disadvantage to this from my perspective is that > we'll have to change the build process for all third > party applications that use libcam. Those include > cdrecord, cdda2wav, tosha, SANE, xmcd, and who knows what > else. They'll have to have some conditional make rule > to figure out whether to add libsbuf or libfoo. > > It would probably be easier if sbufs were put in some > new library, so the makefiles could check for the > existence of libsbuf, and then add that to the link > line. (Instead of checking the OS version.) > > - Put sbufs in libc. > > This has the advantage, from my perspective, that > third-party applications wouldn't need any changes to > build with libcam after the change. > > This has the distinct disadvantage of likely being > contraversial, and would perhaps violate some standard or > other for libc interfaces. You can put them in libc as long as you use weak definitions to them (#pragma weak sbuf_new=__sbuf_new). -- Dan Eischen To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.SUN.3.91.1010226070300.26127A-100000>