Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!sundc!pitstop!sun!limes From: limes@sun.uucp (Greg Limes) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: But what about kernel printfs? Message-ID: <52346@sun.uucp> Date: 6 May 88 22:22:09 GMT References: <12360@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> <4659@ihlpf.ATT.COM> Reply-To: limes@sun.UUCP (Greg Limes) Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mountain View Lines: 24 Keywords: printf,UNIX,kernel In article <4659@ihlpf.ATT.COM> nevin1@ihlpf.UUCP (00704a-Liber,N.J.) writes: >In article <12360@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> lvc@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Lawrence V. Cipriani) writes: >>Even if one argues that an implementation of the UNIX >>kernel is not portable to other machines it should be >>at least portable to other compilers for the same cpu. > >Unfortunately, the implementation of the kernal (or is it kernel? :-)) is >not only CPU dependent but very machine-dependent. I agree that an >implementation of the kernal should be written to avoid as many of these >dependencies as possible, but the dependencies on all of the supporting >hardware is still there. For example: I would NOT expect A/UX to run on >any 680x0 machine except the Mac-II (and its' decendents). Don't be too sure. Remember that portable sections of the kernel can be used to provide similar services on very different machines; that makes porting to, say, a new product line easier. While I was not part of the porting team, I can imagine how portable (and nonportable) code impacted the jobs of the people setting up SunOS on the Sun-4 and the Sun-386i. I *do* know that most of the source for SunOS 3.x is the same between the Sun-3 and Sun-4 versions. Writing archetecture, machine, or compiler dependent code without good reason may be asking for trouble down the line. -- Greg Limes [limes@sun.com] Illigitimi Non Carborundum