[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: L4 instead of gnumach?

From: Marcus Brinkmann
Subject: Re: L4 instead of gnumach?
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 20:14:52 +0100
User-agent: Mutt/1.1.4i

On Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 07:18:48PM +0100, Erik Verbruggen wrote:
> > My concerns last time I looked at L4 was
> > 
> >   (i) It was written in C++, which I dislike (that's a religious
> >       question, and this is not the right place to argue the details).
> Erm, ok, you took that implementation ("problem" with L4 on Intel is
> that there are actually 3 implementations). This is the better one in my
> opinion.

There are only two for x86 which have a free license, Fiasco and L4KA,
and both are in C++. The others are written in Assembler and have no
license we can use. For Alpha there is a free assembler impl, and for MIPS a
free C one. For StrongARM, L4KA is also available.

I don't know what API's are exported, though.


`Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.' Debian
Marcus Brinkmann              GNU

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]