[dwm] Minimalism

2008-01-17 Thread Sylvain Bertrand
Hi,
I'm looking to reduce my software stack and I'm targeting the C
library. I know I just need to perform direct Linux syscalls and it
will be fine. But, I would like to load ELF shared objects in my
process space and for that, the only way I know is to use the dynamic
linking lib from the C library. Has anybody heard about something like
that?

And for dwm, I don't know what would be the cost to build directly the
X11 packets or to recode the XCB lib straight on Linux syscalls.

Cheers,

  Sylvain



Re: [dwm] Minimalism

2008-01-17 Thread pancake
On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 12:37:56PM +0100, Sylvain Bertrand wrote:
 Hi,
 I'm looking to reduce my software stack and I'm targeting the C
 library. I know I just need to perform direct Linux syscalls and it
 will be fine. But, I would like to load ELF shared objects in my
 process space and for that, the only way I know is to use the dynamic
 linking lib from the C library. Has anybody heard about something like
 that?

lolsome, libraries are here to avoid code duplication in memory,
i know that most of GNU ones are blobs, but the solution is not coding
like gcc -static does. This is a task of the compiler and what you're
proposing is a bad software design rule.

About the shared object loading..it's not inside libC on GNU systems.
This task is delegated to libdl. so it's an standalone library.

I think that system elf loader (ld.so) should be able to do it so..if 
you're writing a virus or playing with low-level stuff on *nix you can
get a look on it.

 And for dwm, I don't know what would be the cost to build directly the
 X11 packets or to recode the XCB lib straight on Linux syscalls.

This will make dwm unportable and we should implement the different
ways to communicate with X11 (socket file, network,..)



Re: [dwm] Minimalism

2008-01-17 Thread markus schnalke
Sylvain Bertrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

   And for dwm, I don't know what would be the cost to build directly the
   X11 packets or to recode the XCB lib straight on Linux syscalls.
 
  This will make dwm unportable and we should implement the different
  ways to communicate with X11 (socket file, network,..)
 
 If portability is a major feature for dwm, then I'll pass on this.

Just have a look at the Unix philosophy:

Choose portability over efficiency.


... nothing more to say here, I think.


meillo



Re: [dwm] Minimalism

2008-01-17 Thread Christian Garbs
On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 12:37:56PM +0100, Sylvain Bertrand wrote:

 I'm looking to reduce my software stack and I'm targeting the C
 library.

Have you had a look at the dietlibc?  It's a shrunken C library:
http://www.fefe.de/dietlibc/

Regards,
Christian
-- 
Christian.Garbs.http://www.cgarbs.de

Zitat NORDTEXT, S. 677 v. 06.11.1999 - 16:50 Uhr:
Denn trotz (oder gerade wegen) Windows:
 Ein PC ist nach wie vor alles andere als einfach zu bedienen.