From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnd Bergmann Subject: Re: Generic syscall ABI support Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 10:42:52 +0000 Message-ID: <201303291042.52284.arnd@arndb.de> References: <1364532097.18069.7@driftwood> <51551E60.4070708@zytor.com> <1364550599.7481.8.camel@leyfoon-vm> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.17.8]:55791 "EHLO moutng.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751105Ab3C2Km6 (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Mar 2013 06:42:58 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1364550599.7481.8.camel@leyfoon-vm> Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Ley Foon Tan Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" , Rob Landley , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org On Friday 29 March 2013, Ley Foon Tan wrote: > > > Thanks for the suggestion. > Too bad we don't have in-house expert in klibc and musl port. > > Hi HPA, > I knew you are the developer of klibc. Do you have any documentation to > port a new architecture and also how to replace glibc with klibc in > build? > > By the way, klibc or musl is easier to port? I have no experience with musl, but klibc is probably the easiest to port that you can find. Doing a new port doesn't require any prior knowledge of klibc itself, the code is so small that any experienced C programmer can understand it entirely in short time and do a new port. However, it is also not meant as a general purpose libc or a glibc replacement, as there is a very limited set of code that can use it. It's certainly complete enough to test that the ABI itself is working. Arnd