Re: configuration

[Farid Hajji]

>   Do all of you agree that the basic idea should be to construct a
> generic but yet powerful layer and rewrite Hurd on the top of the
> microkernel-independent layer? But don't forget that GCC still has
> some predefinitions of Mach. We need to consider (1) simply getting
> rid of them, (2) replacing them with generic ones (e.g. -DMOM), or (3)
> still defining microkernel-specific constants, to allow to implement
> microkernel-dependent features.
I don't understand how GCC depends on Mach. Please enlighten me.

>   BTW, what is the difference between libmom and libvk? I think it is
> just what you want to call them. For me, MOM is a better name, because
> this is an existing English word. :)
I choose the name libvk for the following (trivial) reasons:
  1. I have no idea what libmom really does (do you know under which
     CVS tag libmom can be downloaded? I'd like to have a look at what
     was already there)
  2. I wanted to avoid name clashes with something I don't know anything
     about.
  3. libvk should also be available on guest-OSes. Was libmom intended
     to do that?
  4. libvk functions should be defined inline as far as possible for
     max. speed. Quid libmom?

If libmom is that what is intended in libvk, then let's call it libmom.
I have no preference whatsoever.

Regards,

-Farid.

-- 
Farid Hajji -- Unix Systems and Network Admin | Phone: +49-2131-67-555
Broicherdorfstr. 83, D-41564 Kaarst, Germany  | address@hidden
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + - - - - - - - - - - - -
Murphy's Law fails only when you try to demonstrate it, and thus succeeds.