Hacker News Reader

HNHacker News

Top New Best Ask Show Jobs

Comment by Mithaldu | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Mithaldu·

> He claims that your code will be easy to port but then goes straight to Linux system calls.

Many linux developers believe "code is portable" means "can run on different linux distros".

Edit: To be fair, he said architectures, and i think he meant CPU architectures, i.e. AMD64 and i386.

View on HN

But still, Linux syscalls are different on each architecture.

Indeed, stupidly different. Different syscall numbers, different argument orders, different values for constants, different struct layouts, ... Some architectures, like MIPS, are particularly bad, with nods to Irix compatibility thrown in.

The BSDs are all exactly the same for every architecture, sane.

Does that mean you can run Irix binaries on MIPS Linux?

This dates back to how Linus did the first non-x86 port of Linux to the DEC Alpha. Rather than copying the x86 linux syscall conventions, he used the DEC OSF/1 syscall conventions to ease bootstrapping. This is a perfectly sane approach. But he probably should have reverted to a native syscall numbering rather than leaving this bootstrapping hack in place.

Different platforms have different sets of registers and alignment requirements. You want to pass things in registers if possible. If you want to avoid inefficiency, you need platform differences. And this is all hidden from users and even developers anyway.

...which is why he used the SYS_ #defines.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com