Hello!
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 11:18:52AM +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> On 19/07/10 23:06, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> >> * What's the reason for having a libmachuser / libhurduser be part of
> >>glibc?
> >>
> >>Is it for Roland's convenience, or is there a technical reason?
On 19/07/10 23:06, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>> * What's the reason for having a libmachuser / libhurduser be part of
>>glibc?
>>
>>Is it for Roland's convenience, or is there a technical reason? Can
>>we move it out of the glibc build process?
>>
>
> Given the need for the librar
Hello!
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 02:06:21PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > * What's the reason for having a libmachuser / libhurduser be part of
> >glibc?
> Given the need for the libraries, they have to be built somewhere.
Obviously. :-)
> you still need the function to exist, so
At Mon, 19 Jul 2010 11:16:03 +0200,
Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> * Avoid code duplication -- may have been relevant, but is it
> still?
>
> Actually, if I understood correctly, in his Viengoos kernel, Neal
> is doing all RPC stub code generation in the pre-processor, thus
> * What's the reason for having a libmachuser / libhurduser be part of
>glibc?
>
>Is it for Roland's convenience, or is there a technical reason? Can
>we move it out of the glibc build process?
>
Given the need for the libraries, they have to be built somewhere. Since
glibc needs t
Hello!
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 10:17:32AM +0200, Sergio Lopez wrote:
> El Sun, 18 Jul 2010 00:47:01 +0300
> Karim Allah Ahmed escribió:
>
> > I've modified a little bit some RPCs of the current gnumach interface
> > ( mainly added a new argument ) , all the changes are in
> > ( [gnu-src]/includ
