> >Also, in my interpreter-evangelist hat, I'd like to be able to bind
> >anything to anything else, at any level, which at some point means
> >teaching an interpreter to talk directly to the kernel, without libc in
> >the middle. This ought to be possible.
>
> It's certainly possible, but I don't really see what it buys you. All you're
> doing is pushing some of the work that libc currently does into your
> application.
>
> Why do you want to cut libc out of the loop? If you're concerned about code
> size then the way forward is probably to work on making libc more modular so
> that you can do away with the bits that you don't need, rather than chucking
> the whole lot and starting again.
No, nothing like that. I was actually thinking more along the lines of
FORTH, which tends to bypass layers, and the example provided by Java
(which demonstrated invoking library functions directly, using dl_sym.
Invoking syscalls directly is the next step.) I'm not saying I need this,
or that anyone is going to need it any time soon, just that it should be a
possibility. All that means is that the Linux syscall interface should be
considered published.
-- Kenneth Albanowski (kjahds@kjahds.com, CIS: 70705,126)
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/