Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 14:06:36 -0800 From: Alfred Perlstein <alfred@freebsd.org> To: Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org> Cc: Brooks Davis <brooks@freebsd.org>, Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org>, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: RFC: libkse*.a in 7.0 Message-ID: <20071128220636.GQ71382@elvis.mu.org> In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.64.0711281651360.24547@sea.ntplx.net> References: <20071128211022.GA74762@lor.one-eyed-alien.net> <20071128213947.Q7555@fledge.watson.org> <Pine.GSO.4.64.0711281651360.24547@sea.ntplx.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org> [071128 14:05] wrote: > On Wed, 28 Nov 2007, Robert Watson wrote: > > > > >On Wed, 28 Nov 2007, Brooks Davis wrote: > > > >>A number of people have proposed a direction in 8.0 that would remove > >>support for the syscalls and kernel data structures required by libkse. > >>Apparently this would enable significant simplification of portions of > >>the kernel, but I have no deeply held personal opinion. The intent is > >>that if that happens, alternate versions of the necessicary dynamic > >>libraries will be supplied in updated compat#x packages. This will > >>address most consumers. The one set of consumers that would not be > >>addressed is those who have statically linked, threaded binaries using > >>libkse. > > > >It's worth noting that some other mainstream operating systems work hard > >to disallow static linking for precisely this sort of reason -- when I > >last checked, Mac OS X had only one statically linked binary, init, and it > >may well be that launchd is dynamically linked. This is part of a very > >explicit policy that the defined ABI for applications is *not* the system > >call layer, but rather, the library interfaces, which gives greater > >flexibility to modify the system call interface as needed. > > I argued for removing libc.a as well as lib<thread>.a a couple of > years ago and was met with opposition, mostly because statically > linked applications are faster. > > I think we should remove libthr.a, libkse.a and libc.a, so flame on! I agree, as long as someone can flip a switch and turn it back on for ISVs. -Alfred
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20071128220636.GQ71382>