On Thu, 2010-12-23 at 04:12 -0500, John Cowan wrote:
> Peter Kourzanov scripsit:
>
> > Just do $man _syscall on Linux (imagine open i.s.o. sysinfo in the
> > example there).
>
> _Syscall is obsolete and deprecated.

I think _syscall is still there. its just not included in the set of
visible headers for the user. An insistent user may define it himself,
even.

> Anyhow, the _syscallX macros
> *generate* functions that make system calls, they don't substitute
> for them.

Is there any observable difference between non-hijacked open(2) call, a
static function generated by _syscall macro or a developer
cut-and-pasting a sequence of assembly instructions in his code (as a
macro)?

I haven't looked into libc for at least 10 years, but I do expect that
a faster implementation of fopen & co. would use the latter rather than
the former.

Still returning to Scheme, I would like to be also in control concerning
eqv?, using open(2) when I don't care about exact semantics and using
something like _syscall when semantics are at stake.

_______________________________________________
r6rs-discuss mailing list
r6rs-discuss@lists.r6rs.org
http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss