re: backward compatibility: how far can it reasonably go?

[matthew green <mrg%eterna.com.au@localhost>]

> > On Dec 8, 2021, at 10:52 AM, Greg A. Woods <woods%planix.ca@localhost> wrote:
> > 
> > That's one bullet I've dodged entirely already since my oldest systems
> > are running netbsd-5 stable.  (Though in theory isn't there supposed to
> > be COMPAT support for SA?)
>
> int
> compat_60_sys_sa_register(lwp_t *l,
>         const struct compat_60_sys_sa_register_args *uap,
>         register_t *retval)
> {
>         return sys_nosys(l, uap, retval);
> }
>
> SA is one of those things that's REALLY hard to provide compatibility for.

indeed, and only static userland would be affected, as ad@ also
provided replacement libpthread.so's for netbsd-4 that made it
use the newer kernel system instead, for use in chroot, and
this technique could also be provided for earlier if needed.


.mrg.