Re: [Scheme-reports] [r6rs-discuss] redefining eqv?

[Peter Kourzanov <peter.kourzanov@x>]

On Thu, 2010-12-23 at 04:12 -0500, John Cowan wrote:
> Peter Kourzanov scripsit:
> 
> > Just do $man _syscall on Linux (imagine open i.s.o. sysinfo in the
> > example there).
> 
> _Syscall is obsolete and deprecated.  

I think _syscall is still there. its just not included in the set of
visible headers for the user. An insistent user may define it himself, 
even.

> Anyhow, the _syscallX macros
> *generate* functions that make system calls, they don't substitute
> for them.

Is there any observable difference between non-hijacked open(2) call, a
static function generated by _syscall macro or a developer
cut-and-pasting a sequence of assembly instructions in his code (as a 
macro)?

I haven't looked into libc for at least 10 years, but I do expect that
a faster implementation of fopen & co. would use the latter rather than
the former.

Still returning to Scheme, I would like to be also in control concerning
eqv?, using open(2) when I don't care about exact semantics and using
something like _syscall when semantics are at stake.



_______________________________________________
Scheme-reports mailing list
Scheme-reports@x
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports