Article View: comp.unix.programmer
Article #1011Whether POSIX calls should be called system calls
From: Dan Bernstein
Date: Sun, 14 Oct 1990 18:07
Date: Sun, 14 Oct 1990 18:07
21 lines
1599 bytes
1599 bytes
I think of POSIX calls as system calls, even if they aren't implemented inside the kernel. There's no way for a conforming program to tell whether something's a kernel call or not; and POSIX calls feel like system calls in every other way (they're guaranteed to be around and work correctly, no matter what libraries you have). Any differing opinions? Followups to comp.unix.misc. In article <1990Oct14.122854.17433@virtech.uucp> cpcahil@virtech.UUCP (Conor P. Cahill) writes: > In article <21628:Oct1400:12:2990@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes: > >and BSD > >stat() might not be implemented inside the kernel either. (It can be > >written in terms of lstat() and readlink(), for example.) > Actually, to maintain binary compatibility with earlier code it has > to be implemented in the kernel. Grasping at straws. Binary compatibility is not a requirement for a UNIX system. It's hardly even important for most people. I stand by my statement. ---Dan
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<24420:Oct1418:07:5290@kramden.acf.nyu.edu>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!yale!cmcl2!kramden.acf.nyu.edu!brnstndReferences:
<4182@auspex.auspex.com> <21628:Oct1400:12:2990@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> <1990Oct14.122854.17433@virtech.uucp>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!yale!cmcl2!kramden.acf.nyu.edu!brnstnd From: brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) Newsgroups: comp.unix.programmer,comp.unix.misc Subject: Whether POSIX calls should be called system calls Message-ID: <24420:Oct1418:07:5290@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> Date: 14 Oct 90 18:07:52 GMT References: <4182@auspex.auspex.com> <21628:Oct1400:12:2990@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> <1990Oct14.122854.17433@virtech.uucp> Followup-To: comp.unix.misc Organization: IR Lines: 21 X-Original-Subject: Re: Why use pwd(1) for getpwd(3C)? (Re: Why use find?)