In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Dan Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hmm. So does this mean that SVR4-compliant programs must be
> dynamically-linked?
Yes. The specification says that statically-linked programs are not
compliant.
> Is there any recommendations on how an OS should supply an SVR4 libc
> to an SVR4 application when the OS itself may not be SVR4-compliant?
Theoretically, you wouldn't need any kernel-level emulation at all if
you provided the right libc. But of course it's not really SVR4 you
want to emulate -- it's UnixWare or OpenServer or something else that
has lots of extra interfaces which are outside the ABI specification.
Overall I think it's easier to use the vendor's libraries and do the
emulation at the kernel level, as we do now.
> And this doesn't address any libraries other than libc, I suppose?
Right.
> Sounds like trying to emulate "SVR4" in itself isn't sufficient. We
> can still call the kld svr4.ko, but it's really doing SCO/SolarisX86
> syscall emulation.
Yep.
John
--
John Polstra [EMAIL PROTECTED]
John D. Polstra & Co., Inc. Seattle, Washington USA
"Disappointment is a good sign of basic intelligence." -- Chögyam Trungpa
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
