Re: procfs development

[Alfred Perlstein]

* Alton, Matthew [EMAIL PROTECTED] [020402 16:18] wrote:
 
 I managed to glean from sys/procfs.h 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

Re: procfs development

[Poul-Henning Kamp]

In message E1450DFD283DD6118492A5F0032356BD7C@STLABCEXG024, 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