On Sat, 2007-11-03 at 20:13 +0100, Fabrice Bellard wrote: > Thayne Harbaugh wrote: > > On Sat, 2007-11-03 at 13:52 +0100, J. Mayer wrote: > >> On Sat, 2007-11-03 at 01:21 +0000, Thiemo Seufer wrote: > >> [...] > >> But it could be great to group the syscalls by > >> categories, or so. For example, putting all POSIX compliant syscalls in > >> a single file and using a syscall table could make quite easy to develop > >> a BSD-user target (I did this in the past, not in Qemu though...). POSIX > >> compliant interfaces can mostly be shared with Linux ones and a lot of > >> other syscalls are common to the 3 BSD flavors (Net, Open and Free..). > >> Being able to add a BSD target sharing the same code would be a proof > >> the code is flexible and well organized; I guess large parts of the > >> Darwin user target could also be merged with a FreeBSD user target... > > > > That's a reasonable strategy as well. I've looked through some of the > > darwin code and have considered how common code could be merged. > > I am strongly against such merges. > > Different OS emulation must be handled in different directories (and > maybe even in different projects) as they are likely to have subtle > differences which makes impossible to test a modification made for one > OS without testing all the other OSes.
Agreed.
