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 _Syscall is obsolete and deprecated.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
