| |||||||||||||
Well, people are free to do whatever they want with your library...Well, people are free to do whatever they want with your library...Posted Nov 8, 2011 7:23 UTC (Tue) by khim (subscriber, #9252)In reply to: There is nothing wrong with use of the old version by jlokier Parent article: libabc: a demonstration library for kernel developers
Responding to "it just makes no sense to worry about ARM for MMU compatibility": Generally in a library, there's no need for specific "ARM-without-MMU" support. Assuming it works effortlessly on ARM (which it should these days), it would be just about the MMU, independent of CPU architecture. Which most things do fine, and a few need small changes. That's fine. If your library is used on some exotic platform (be it Windows, VMS or ARM without MMU) then I see no problem with it. But if you start changing everything from the start to support them... that's another thing.
(Log in to post comments)
|
|||||||||||||