On May 31, 2005, at 4:11 AM, Christos Zoulas wrote:
| Well, the libc and libpthread developers thought they needed it. I | assume any other developer writing assembly code might find it | useful, too. These are much more attached to the kernel than regular application developers.
I think that's nonsense. Just because parts of these libraries are tightly-coupled to the kernel doesn't mean that their use of genassym is. These libraries have assembly code in them that accesses data structures. How would that be different than, say, a hand-optimized video codec or a cryptographic transform?
This is still the case. From where I am sitting the number of non- kerneldevelopers far outweighs the number of kernel developers. In anycase, if we move them, we should move them both.
Your use of the term "outweighs" suggests that moving genassym would be somehow harmful or against the interests of non-kernel developers. "Outnumbers" would be a more appropriate term, I think.
In any case, I don't think all of the embedded system developers out there are system administrators. And they configure kernels all the time.
-- thorpej