On Tue, Apr 03, 2018 at 04:44:10PM -0400, Shawn Webb wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 03, 2018 at 08:32:10PM +, Brooks Davis wrote:
> > We (mostly Ali) are working on a patch to to split the actual syscalls
> > (__sys_) out of libc and into a libsys. For dynamic linking,
> > this is fairly straightforward
On Tue, Apr 03, 2018 at 10:39:44PM +0200, Dimitry Andric wrote:
> On 3 Apr 2018, at 22:32, Brooks Davis wrote:
> >
> > We (mostly Ali) are working on a patch to to split the actual syscalls
> > (__sys_) out of libc and into a libsys. For dynamic linking,
> > this is fairly straightforward (link
On Tue, Apr 03, 2018 at 08:32:10PM +, Brooks Davis wrote:
> We (mostly Ali) are working on a patch to to split the actual syscalls
> (__sys_) out of libc and into a libsys. For dynamic linking,
> this is fairly straightforward (link libc against libsys, maybe as a
> filter). For static linkin
On 3 Apr 2018, at 22:32, Brooks Davis wrote:
>
> We (mostly Ali) are working on a patch to to split the actual syscalls
> (__sys_) out of libc and into a libsys. For dynamic linking,
> this is fairly straightforward (link libc against libsys, maybe as a
> filter). For static linking, I'm lookin
We (mostly Ali) are working on a patch to to split the actual syscalls
(__sys_) out of libc and into a libsys. For dynamic linking,
this is fairly straightforward (link libc against libsys, maybe as a
filter). For static linking, I'm looking for feedback on the right
approach. Do we link libsys.
