Re: glibc vs BSD libc

2003-01-20 Thread Kris Kennaway
On Mon, Jan 20, 2003 at 05:05:38AM -0800, Atifa Kheel wrote: Some other comments: > glibc support for standards: > ANSI C(ISO C) > POSIX (Pthreads support) > SYSTEM V > (Eg: > Malloc tunable parameter(mallopt) > Extensions : > Statistics for storage allocation with malloc(mallinfo) > _tolower() a

Re: Glibc-based GNU/FreeBSD

2003-01-20 Thread Nathan Hawkins
On Mon, Jan 20, 2003 at 10:50:05PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote: > Hello! > > What is the current status of GNU/FreeBSD with the Glibc? I've had to put the work I was doing on hold. Bruno Haible doesn't seem to have done much further with merging into glibc. There are substantial problems with /u

Re: glibc vs BSD libc

2003-01-20 Thread Kris Kennaway
On Mon, Jan 20, 2003 at 10:31:31AM -0600, Dan Nelson wrote: > > System database and name service switch(NSS) > > glibc: Supported > > BSD libc: NSS not supported.Incompatible shadow and password support and > > ancient utmp. > > (Problem Solved by writing a library libshadow) > > User applicati

Glibc-based GNU/FreeBSD

2003-01-20 Thread Robert Millan
Hello! What is the current status of GNU/FreeBSD with the Glibc? Is there any tarball available for download? thanks, -- Robert Millan "Omnis enim res, quad dando non deficit, dum habetur et non datur, nondum habetur, quomodo habenda est." "For if a thing is not diminished by being shared

Re: glibc vs BSD libc

2003-01-20 Thread Andreas Schuldei
* Neal H. Walfield ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030120 19:10]: > > 3. > > Portability > > glibc:Portable to more than one Kernel and hence large > > BSD libc:Don’t attempt to be portable across kernels and hence > > smaller. > > I do not see the logic. If you are speaking about lines of code in > the dis

Re: glibc vs BSD libc

2003-01-20 Thread Neal H. Walfield
> 3. > Portability > glibc:Portable to more than one Kernel and hence large > BSD libc:Don’t attempt to be portable across kernels and hence > smaller. I do not see the logic. If you are speaking about lines of code in the distribution, I may agree, however, this does not speak to the size of the

Re: glibc vs BSD libc

2003-01-20 Thread Neal H. Walfield
> In the last episode (Jan 20), Atifa Kheel said: > > e)Other Streams(like string streams,Obstack streams,etc) > > glibc: Supported > > BSD libc: Not Supported. > > BSD supports funopen() which allows the user to create handles for > arbitrary stream types. glibc has fopencookie which is similar.

Re: glibc vs BSD libc

2003-01-20 Thread Dan Nelson
In the last episode (Jan 20), Atifa Kheel said: > e)Other Streams(like string streams,Obstack streams,etc) > glibc: Supported > BSD libc: Not Supported. BSD supports funopen() which allows the user to create handles for arbitrary stream types. http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=funopen > S

Re: glibc vs BSD libc

2003-01-20 Thread Momchil Velikov
> "Atifa" == Atifa Kheel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Atifa> e)Other Streams(like string streams,Obstack streams,etc) Atifa> glibc: Supported Atifa> BSD libc: Not Supported. wide oriented streams (wprintf, etc.) ? Atifa> 14. Atifa> Math Library Atifa> Support for Mathe

glibc vs BSD libc

2003-01-20 Thread Atifa Kheel
Hello, I am trying to study the various functionalities supported by glibc Vs presence or absence of those features in BSD libc. This information here is w.r.t BSD libc which is supplied with FreeBSD4.6(on intel) i would like to know if i am missing something or some information is not accurate. An