Re: Re: [UnixOS2] libc

On Wed, Jul 16, 2003 at 07:58:35AM +0200, Stefan Neis wrote:
> > I see no reason to include things about which "nothing is known".
> 
> Nobody used the phrase "nothing is known". I said "no limitation
> (comparing to BSD) is known", i.e. works as designed.

I see that some kind of mmap()ing is included.  Given no support from
the swapper logic, I doubt it "works as designed".  Likewise for
shm*().  Likewise for dlopen().

This undermines your statement a lot.  I'm completely puzzled at your
intentions.  We *know* that some APIs can't be implemented without
reservations.  We *know* that including such skewed implementations
into the default C library can *break* a lot of programs (due to
./configure taking different decisions).

I expect that you must know all this as well.  What is the point then
in stating things otherwise?

[about the math library:]

> Feel free to restart evaluating those files, if you feel like it,
> though...

The whole point is that it's not me, but the list who should be able
to evaluate things.  But maybe we can circumvent the whole discussion:
if it turns out that EM did not check things line-by-line (just
borrowed the source from somewhere without a lot of QA), why should we?  ;-)

So, Eberhard, how the math-part of the C library was created?

> > P.S.  To speed up the discussion, this list should be broken into two
> >       parts: functions which were available as functions or macros in
> >       EMX, and the rest.

> Feel free to do so...

My point is that whoever wants the merge should do some (minimal)
amount of work *before* the discussion of the merge may *start*.  Sad,
of course, but we are working with a very fragile universe...

Thanks again for what you did already,
Ilya