From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_EF,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from sourceware.org (server1.sourceware.org [209.132.180.131]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C1B541F461 for ; Thu, 27 Jun 2019 17:22:06 +0000 (UTC) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id :list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post :list-help:sender:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:mime-version:content-type; q=dns; s=default; b=n6L4D M6Cpqn88diVHj/B5X9aILhN0KhM3mKKUV+SRARsdSxaFlE2NyThY6QEPPXYCjEAm 8B17j6OTVJjdi2iqT2duO4EkFeQWcGAbHVpdtJV8aZHqhWBL6hbjFhTO34f0pMI0 0x9AjbO5WHEziEEs1IzGSjW/tZGfD1smENP1vY= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id :list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post :list-help:sender:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:mime-version:content-type; s=default; bh=8dIfppo6kgt ua0/CC9Hmj1Drtwc=; b=ibISumWgiNYxEaPeg2DcKhgS6ZKRuNSHXeYO4vVGH6r ZObiFCm/sWgp4NMwqyrFLsLZrlQX8EdUrlzT3D7xgveOgaE47al9IbKA6iP4Nnuh HxiHekZBoRGIL4eamVlhlqqkXAzcdqOyDKelIZDloBaf0M2snOGHC4EIKkxgTLic = Received: (qmail 64601 invoked by alias); 27 Jun 2019 17:22:04 -0000 Mailing-List: contact libc-alpha-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: libc-alpha-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 64591 invoked by uid 89); 27 Jun 2019 17:22:04 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com From: Florian Weimer To: Zack Weinberg Cc: "Dmitry V. Levin" , "Carlos O'Donell" , GNU C Library Subject: Re: glibc at the Toolchains microconference at LPC 2019 In-Reply-To: (Zack Weinberg's message of "Thu, 27 Jun 2019 11:57:46 -0400") References: <87o92kibdz.fsf@oldenburg2.str.redhat.com> <20190626163908.GA13251@altlinux.org> <530DF2A2-2D76-43F6-81D0-405EFE097A57@brauner.io> <5f740811-e7d7-6ece-4156-89651666e416@redhat.com> <20190627093928.GA25423@altlinux.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.2 (gnu/linux) Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2019 19:21:58 +0200 Message-ID: <87a7e3rljd.fsf@oldenburg2.str.redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain * Zack Weinberg: > I specifically disagree with this. The existence of these dedicated > libraries does not mean that there is no need for a minimal wrapper in > the C library. In fact, providing a minimal wrapper in the C library > would make the implementation of dedicated libraries easier, since > they can concentrate on designing their higher-level API rather than > wasting engineering effort on system call wrappers. glibc has already > done all of the low-level work necessary. We would have to begin backporting syscall wrappers, though. Otherwise these libraries are blocked until a glibc upgrade, which may not happen any time soon. Maybe we can move well-established libraries into glibc eventually, but that can have unpredictable results if those libraries did not use symbol versioning from the start (so that their implementation interposes a newer glibc implementation for the entire process). But I don't know if this (no syscall wrappers except in glibc) works as a default policy. Thanks, Florian