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
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]/include/mach/mach.defs ) , and I've
> modified the pager library accordingly.
>
> Now I
> This means that it's still using the mach.defs (it has less arguments than
> the new one) which is strange because I've added the new
>
err. I meant "It's still using the old mach.defs (...) "
--
Karim Allah Ahmed.
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]/include/mach/mach.defs ) , and I've modified the pager
library accordingly.
Now I'm compiling the pager library code to start testing the patch but I
keep get
