Subject: Re: Split of syscall code (please comment)
To: Matthew Orgass <email@example.com>
From: Jaromír Dolecek <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 11/28/2000 11:45:06
Matthew Orgass wrote:
> > Question here is, what is the best way to achieve this. Ideally,
> > there would be no code duplication at all; in any case
> > it's not wise to copy the syscall() code to n emulation-dependant files.
> I don't think copying would be all that bad in this situation. While it
> would make sense for the BSD systems to share, I don't see the gain in
> trying to force Linux emulation to share the same code. It is not a large
> or frequently updated section of code and there are a number of
The differences are not quite that big. Majority of code is shared.
On the other hand, if completely split, the code would be a bit more
Is the code in question really updated so seldomly ?
> Also, I think it would be better to share by inline functions rather
> than messy #includes. inline is now a standard C keyword and thanks to
> C++ is almost certainly supported by every compiler that is interesting.
How would inlines help here ?
Like you'd suggest to put the code in header file and pull in via
inline ? That would not work, I need to put pointer of the function
to struct emul.
Jaromir Dolecek <jdolecek@NetBSD.org> http://www.ics.muni.cz/~dolecek/
@@@@ Wanna a real operating system ? Go and get NetBSD, damn! @@@@