This is the mail archive of the
libc-ports@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the libc-ports project.
Re: Confirming porting strategy
On Fri, Sep 23, 2005 at 02:35:19PM -0400, Jonathan S. Shapiro wrote:
> We're actually in the OS bringup stage, and we're borrowing a lot from
> the EROS code (which used newlib). In general, the OS shouldn't depend
> on libc, but we do permit the OS to include certain header files that
> might be considered "non-hosted". In particular, we include stdint.h and
> limits.h in OS source.
...
> Since we want to use glibc, this made it convenient to try to get a
> naive build of glibc going early. It let me validate the cross-build
> options. I realize that we could settle for header file installation and
> I'm about ready to do that if I can't get a build pretty soon.
What's missing from the rest of your message, completely, is the
explanation for "we want to use glibc". Glibc is a hosted,
POSIX-conformant C library. Its main advantage over other C libraries
is how thorough, complete, and conformant it is. If you don't want a
whole POSIX interface, why are you switching away from newlib?
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery, LLC