Kevin D. Kissell wrote: >> >> So the problem is? > > > The problem is that, out in industry, not everyone wants to > build their entire userland from source, and nobody particularly > wants to deal with the product management problems of making, > maintaining, testing, and distributing all the permutations of BE/LE, > FP/noFP, LLSC/noLLSC, etc, etc. > Could not have said it better myself. If you have the emulation then you can always use a noLLSC version of glibc if you are performance-driven. Otherwise you can _also_ use the generic LLSC version. The overhead of having a few hundreds of words of code is pretty small (compared with 70+k of filenames via the BUG() macro) and ensures that either glibc will work. It's the best of both worlds. -- Joe deBlaquiere Red Hat, Inc. 307 Wynn Drive Huntsville AL, 35805 voice : (256)-704-9200 fax : (256)-837-3839
