> * What's the reason for having a libmachuser / libhurduser be part of
> glibc?
>
> Is it for Roland's convenience, or is there a technical reason? Can
> we move it out of the glibc build process?
>
Given the need for the libraries, they have to be built somewhere. Since
glibc needs to use these interfaces, you can't possibly have gnulibc without
them.
> * What's the reason for having a libmachuser / libhurduser at all?
>
See above.
Actually, if I understood correctly, in his Viengoos kernel, Neal
> is doing all RPC stub code generation in the pre-processor, thus
> has it as inline code at every call site. This has one immediate
> advantage: GCC can optimize it, as there is no function-call
> boundary. Should we be doing the same? Someone should do some
> measurements. Neal, any off-hand comments?
>
That's fine, but it doesn't matter: you still need the function to exist, so
that people can take the address of it.
What Karim should do is specify a prefix (there are facilities for just
this) which will then get added to each RPC name so it doesn't conflict with
the standard version.
Thomas
