Re: Official Linux system wrapper library?

From: Szabolcs Nagy <Szabolcs.Nagy@arm.com>
To: David Newall <glibc@davidnewall.com>,
	Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>,
	Daniel Colascione <dancol@google.com>
Cc: nd <nd@arm.com>,
	"Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com>,
	Linux API <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>,
	Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
	Carlos O'Donell <carlos@redhat.com>,
	"libc-alpha@sourceware.org" <libc-alpha@sourceware.org>
Subject: Re: Official Linux system wrapper library?
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2018 15:23:30 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <b0c3ecce-c4d0-246d-d702-21674f950e34@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <a50dbc52-b5e8-6684-508d-b96ad8d70d4f@davidnewall.com>

On 23/11/18 14:11, David Newall wrote:
> On 24/11/18 12:04 am, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> But socketcall does not exist on all architectures.  Neither does
>> getpid, it's called getxpid on some architectures.
>> ...
>> I think it would be a poor approach to expose application developers to
>> these portability issues.  We need to abstract over these differences at
>> a certain layer, and applications are too late.
> 
> Interesting.  I think the opposite.  I think exposing the OS's interfaces is exactly what a c-library should do.  It might also provide
> alternative interfaces that work consistently across different platforms, but in addition to, not instead of the OS interface.

you don't understand the point of the c language if you think so.