Re: CVS commit: src/usr.bin/config

[Masao Uebayashi <uebayasi%gmail.com@localhost>]

On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 1:33 AM, Antti Kantee
<pooka%homeworld.netbsd.org@localhost> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 11:14:50AM +0900, Masao Uebayashi wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 10:51 AM, Christos Zoulas <christos%astron.com@localhost> wrote:
>> > In article <20141030012621.0982E9A%cvs.netbsd.org@localhost>,
>> > Masao Uebayashi <source-changes-d%NetBSD.org@localhost> wrote:
>> >
>> > Re: constructors/destructors:
>> >
>> > Using them will create a portability constraint on elf. This has
>> > the implication that rump will not work on some platforms.
>>
>> Could you show me an example failure senario?  What do you propose instead?
>>
>> I heard that rump fixed linkset problem using .ctors/.dtors.
>
> I heard something different.
>
> A toolchain problem was fixed by using __attribute__((constructor))
> to reach the contents of link sets in userspace dynamically linked
> environments where generating __start/__stop was not possible.
> Regular link sets are still preferred, as they require less magic
> from the runtime.

OK.

> Is there a problem rototilling config is going to solve over what
> is possible with the existing mechanism (*)?

You're welcomed to fix any problems without rotorill and/or breakage.

> The problem TODO lists
> is "random ELF sections (with potentially long names) in the final
> kernel".  Is that a problem?

I may misremember it but was it Mach-O specific?  The "long name" part
may be irrelevant.  But I still *feel* linkset should be done in a
better way.  I'll revisit this when I will look closer at moduler vs.
sysctl.

> *) you probably also heard that rump kernels have constructors with
> priority levels, implemented using link sets

Do you hardcode the priority?