Dear Seth Bollinger, On Fri, 21 Mar 2014 08:26:08 -0500, Seth Bollinger wrote:
> > I saw that yesterday too and thought it could be interesting for > > Yocto. I'm curious as to why it's better than uclibc though > > (genuinely curious, I know little about uclibc beyond "it's smaller"). > > It been a while since I've reviewed uclibc, but doesn't it break a lot of > software with its vfork only paradigm? I'm not sure where you have seen that uClibc has vfork() only paradigm, but it's not correct. uClibc has a proper fork() implementation on all MMU-equipped CPU architectures that uClibc support. Only the non-MMU architectures are limited to vfork(). The originality of uClibc here is probably precisely the fact that it supports non-MMU architectures, which many other C libraries do not. Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com -- _______________________________________________ yocto mailing list [email protected] https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
