Re: L4Hurd at Sourceforge

[Jeroen Dekkers]

On Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 05:23:28PM +0200, Christian Ceelen wrote:
> > I really dislike fiaco because it is written in C++, IMHO C is better for
> Fiasko is not that bad. It's not as fast as the L4Ka, but fast enough
> and compatible to the other X86-L4 kernels. Thus you don't need to worry
> about which L4 microkernel you are using. The V-Fiasko also looks quiete
> promissing.
> But if you want the L4Ka, then look at the CVS repository at
> sourceforge.
> Some C-Bindings are also available there.

As most of them are compatible it doesn't matter much, however I prefer
hazelnut. I already have run it and looked at the code. Fiasco however
didn't compile for me. I don't know the opinion of ther people. :)

> I think at this stage it is much more critical to get a good system
> structure and start codeing some prelimary server to test this
> structure. BTW is there an document describing the API and ABI of the
> Hurd-Services? 

The source is the only documentation, the hurd/*.defs files in the hurd
source define the interfaces. There is also a lot of code in glibc, for
which there is also no documentation AFAIK.

> > a microkernel and the GNU Coding Standards also recommends using C. Hazelnut
> > uses a few bytes of C++ which are easy to remove AFAICS, so it's a
> These few lines of C++ are only for convenience. There shouldn't be a
> difference in performance to a pure C kernel at all. What's the problem
> with these few lines at all?

If we are going to use a L4 variant we probably need to change code, to
fix bugs or for other reasons. As my C++ knowledge isn't that great and
that of other people maybe worse, it's easier to have a C
implementation.


Jeroen Dekkers
-- 
"all the _really_ interesting stuff will be going on in user space."
        --Linus Torvalds
"just say NO TO DRUGS, and maybe you won't end up like the Hurd people."
        --Linus Torvalds, "I was never a "big thinker""

pgpcw54YYfAf2.pgp
Description: PGP signature