From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Samuel Thibault Subject: Re: [PATCH] minios: minor buildsystem fixes Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 09:46:23 -0400 Message-ID: <20090716134623.GC4851@const.linuxsymposium.org> References: <200907151142.48343.Christoph.Egger@amd.com> <19037.64984.324031.106467@mariner.uk.xensource.com> <200907161417.21029.Christoph.Egger@amd.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200907161417.21029.Christoph.Egger@amd.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Christoph Egger Cc: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, Ian Jackson , Keir Fraser , Stefano Stabellini List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org Christoph Egger, le Thu 16 Jul 2009 14:17:20 +0200, a =E9crit : > > And certainly not the host operating system's libraries for our > > cross-build ! >=20 > Please explain why not. > It's a question of having a proper abstraction. It's a problem of ABI. For instance, there is no way to implement x86_64's red zone without adding a kernel/user separation in MiniOS=A0; libcs usually assume that the red zone is available, thus some patching to newlib for instance. > > > Linux build will default to first, NetBSD build will default to lat= ter > > > one. > > > > In particular I think this is quite wrong. >=20 > Please explain why. It's asking for having to fix issues coming from both linux' case and NetBSD's case, while using the same libc all the time would bring just one case. Samuel