Re: procfs development

[Poul-Henning Kamp]

In message , "Alton, Matth
ew" writes:
>Are there any plans to expand the procfs implementation to provide an
>interface that is more in line with the implementations on Unixware,
>Solaris and AIX? I've been writing a simple debugger that would be
>portable among those three platforms, and others, but it is based
>completely on the procfs interface, and I've come to find out the
>procfs implementation on FreeBSD and Linux are (aside from being
>completely different from each other) completely different than what's
>been done on AIX, Solaris and Unixware.

We are working very hard to make procfs optional in FreeBSD for a
number of reasons.

-- 
Poul-Henning Kamp   | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer   | BSD since 4.3-tahoe
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.

To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

Re: procfs development

[Alfred Perlstein]

* Alton, Matthew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [020402 16:18] wrote:
> 
> I managed to glean from  that the FreeBSD implementation
> is basically a barebones interface that is only there for gdb to work
> with.
> 
> So has there been any talk of making the ctl file take
> command/operands structs as input, and/or the status file offer
> elaborate structures as output, or an lwp directory, etc?

Not really, if someone where to present a patchset and documentation
then it would likely be integrated.

-- 
-Alfred Perlstein [[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
'Instead of asking why a piece of software is using "1970s technology,"
 start asking why software is ignoring 30 years of accumulated wisdom.'
Tax deductible donations for FreeBSD: http://www.freebsdfoundation.org/

To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message