On Sunday 02 August 2009 19:58:41 Robin Getz wrote: > On Mon 27 Jul 2009 21:36, Rob Landley pondered: > > I don't understand the difference between ARCH_HAS_MMU and ARCH_USE_MMU. > > (For a kernel, sure. For a C library, not so much.) > > I'm not sure if you are saying they are redundant (which I understand), and > we only need one, or if you think they both are unnecessary?
I think they're redundant. Having ARCH_USE_MMU, and nommu support in general, makes sense for embedded systems. But I'm unaware of any instance where userspace cares about the difference between having and using an MMU, and I don't see it expressed anywhere in the code either. Rob -- Latency is more important than throughput. It's that simple. - Linus Torvalds _______________________________________________ uClibc mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/uclibc
