Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uflorida!haven!adm!xadmx!rbj@dsys.icst.nbs.gov
From: rbj@dsys.icst.nbs.gov (Root Boy Jim)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: syscall(2) function
Message-ID: <18974@adm.BRL.MIL>
Date: 5 Apr 89 17:03:14 GMT
Sender: news@adm.BRL.MIL
Lines: 24

? From: Doug Gwyn  <gwyn@smoke.brl.mil>
? Date: 28 Feb 89 04:48:24 GMT

? In article <2292@unmvax.unm.edu> lee@doc.cs.unm.edu () writes:
? -In article <9742@smoke.BRL.MIL> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>) writes:
? ->In article <3740@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> kerchen@iris.ucdavis.edu (Paul Kerchen) writes:
? ->>Is the system call "syscall()" necessary?
? ->I don't even think it's particularly useful these days; ...
? -It still has uses...
? -	exit (syscall(RESUBA, atoi(argv[1])));

? Only because Berkeley neglected to provide a resuba() hook in
? the C library!  Given direct hooks in the library for all system
? calls, I know of no real requirement for the syscall() function.

You may be correct in the specific case of what you just said, but
the general case is more like asking whether pointers to functions
are desirable in C or whether "funcall" or "apply" is useful in LISP.

Also note that VMS has (or at least RSX has) an indirect format of
their system call.

	Catman Rshd <rbj@nav.icst.nbs.gov>
	Author of "The Daemonic Versions"