On 05/10/2016 12:28 AM, enh wrote: > On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 8:45 PM, Rob Landley <[email protected]> wrote: >>> (2) does not seem to have any advantage over (1). Would (1) be acceptable? >> >> Is __builtin_frame_pointer mentioned in C99? Is it portable to >> clang/llvm, and cfront/libfirm or if http://pcc.ludd.ltu.se/ revives or >> http://landley.net/qcc happens...? >> >> If not, lib/portability.* is the place #ifdef THINGY && THINGY code >> blocks for envrionment-specific stuff. > > i think YAGNI... anyone running SafeStack is probably LP64 and > probably better off just using NORECURSE (with the small fix to not > maintain toys.stacktop).
Until toysh, it's largely moot. The stuff that's likely to use it (mount calling losetup, tar calling gzip, etc) doesn't launch a lot of child instances so the exec overhead is usually a rounding error. It's shell scripts launching hundreds of subcommands that would really care. Rob _______________________________________________ Toybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.landley.net/listinfo.cgi/toybox-landley.net
