On Wed, 14 Nov 2018, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > I’m not so sure it’s useless. Historically, POSIX systems have, in > practice and almost by definition, been very C focused, but the world is > changing. A less crufty library could be useful for newer languages: Historically, there was once an attempt to rework POSIX into a separate language-independent definition and language bindings (for C, Fortran, Ada etc.), but I don't think it got anywhere, and it's probably doubtful whether the idea was ever very practical. (See the introduction to POSIX.1:1990, for example: "Future revisions are expected to contain bindings for other programming languages as well as for the C language. This will be accomplished by breaking this part of ISO/IEC 9945 into multiple portions---one defining core requirements independent of any programming language, and others composed of programming language bindings.".) > > thread internals for syscalls that > > require coordination between all user created > > threads (setxid), > > We should just deal with this in the kernel. The current state of > affairs is nuts. Yes, we should have a few new syscalls to set these ids at the process level. -- Joseph S. Myers joseph@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
