liblinux | just | |
---|---|---|
16 | 167 | |
195 | 17,053 | |
- | - | |
0.0 | 9.1 | |
over 4 years ago | 9 days ago | |
Makefile | Rust | |
MIT License | Creative Commons Zero v1.0 Universal |
Stars - the number of stars that a project has on GitHub. Growth - month over month growth in stars.
Activity is a relative number indicating how actively a project is being developed. Recent commits have higher weight than older ones.
For example, an activity of 9.0 indicates that a project is amongst the top 10% of the most actively developed projects that we are tracking.
liblinux
- Liblinux β architecture-independent access to Linux system calls
-
A standalone zero-dependency Lisp for Linux
> libc isn't really getting in the way here.
For the standard set of system calls, the libc is pretty great. For Linux-specific features, it could take years for glibc to gain support. Perhaps it's gotten better since then, perhaps it still takes years. I don't know.
Years ago I read about the tale of the getrandom system call and the quest to get glibc to support it:
https://lwn.net/Articles/711013/
A kernel hacker wrote in an email:
> maybe the kernel developers should support a libinux.a library that would allow us to bypass glibc when they are being non-helpful
That made a lot of sense to me. I took that concept and kind of ran with it. Started a liblinux project, essentially a libc with nothing but the thinnest possible system call wrappers. Researched quite a bit about glibc's attitude towards Linux to justify it:
https://github.com/matheusmoreira/liblinux#why
Eventually I discovered Linux was already doing the same thing with their own nolibc.h file which they were already using in their own tools. It was a single file back then, by now it's become a sprawling directory full of code:
https://github.com/torvalds/linux/tree/master/tools/include/...
Even asked Greg Kroah-Hartman on reddit about it once:
https://old.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/fx5e4v/im_greg_kroah...
Since the kernel was developing their own awesome headers, I decided to drop liblinux and start lone instead. :)
-
Nolibc: A minimal C-library replacement shipped with the kernel
It gives you access to 100% of Linux's system calls. It eliminates a lot of global state. It gets rid of a lot of legacy libc crap.
Years ago I wrote a fairly referenced rationale in my liblinux project:
https://github.com/matheusmoreira/liblinux/blob/master/READM...
-
Win32 Is the Only Stable ABI on Linux
> Now, do I think it would make total sense for syscall wrappers and NSS to be split into their own libs (or dbus interfaces maybe) with stable ABIs to enable other libc's, absolutely!
I worked on this a few years ago: liblinux.
https://github.com/matheusmoreira/liblinux
I'm not developing it anymore though because I found out the Linux kernel itself has a superior nolibc library:
https://github.com/torvalds/linux/tree/master/tools/include/...
It used to be a single header but it looks like they've recently organized it into a proper project!
I wonder if it will become some kind of official kernel library at some point. I asked Greg Kroah-Hartman about this and he mentioned there was once a klibc:
https://old.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/fx5e4v/im_greg_kroah...
> This is something the BSD's got absolutely right.
BSDs, every other operating system really, force us to use the bundled C libraries and the C ABI. I think Linux's approach is better. It has a language-agnostic system call binary interface: it's just a simple calling convention and the system call instruction.
The right place for system call support is the compiler. We should have system_call keywords that cause it to emit code in the aforementioned calling convention. With this single keyword, it's possible to do program literally anything on Linux. Wrappers for every specific system call should be part of every language's standard library with language-specific types and semantics.
-
Oasis: Small statically-linked Linux system
I'm not using this stuff professionally, it's just my own home lab's virtual machines with little services implemented as freestanding C programs. Not doing anything fancy right now, much of it was just to see if I could do it.
I've seen other people commenting here on HN saying they're using the same approach so it's defenitely not my invention.
I published some of my work in the form of a liblinux that I use to make system calls:
https://github.com/matheusmoreira/liblinux
I'm not developing it anymore though because I found out the kernel itself has a nolibc library:
https://github.com/torvalds/linux/tree/master/tools/include/...
It used to be a single header but it looks like they've organized it into a proper project.
-
A Tutorial on Portable Makefiles
That's awesome. I didn't know about rwildcard until now. Is it part of GMSL? I searched for rwildcard on gmsl.sourceforge.io but didn't find it.
I think my function is needlessly complicated compared to rwildcard. Here's my code:
https://github.com/matheusmoreira/liblinux/blob/modular-buil...
https://github.com/matheusmoreira/liblinux/blob/modular-buil...
The file? and directory? functions were inspired by GMSL.
I wrote a general recursion function. It takes a function to apply to lists and a function to compute whether an element is a base case.
The recursive file system traversal function applies a directory globbing function to the list of paths and has file? as base case.
The find function filters out any items not matching a given predicate function. It was my intention to provide predicates like C_file? and header_file? but I stopped developing that project before that happened.
I think rwildcard is probably simpler and more efficient!
- GitHub - matheusmoreira/liblinux: Linux system calls.
- liblinux: Architecture-independent access to Linux system calls
- Liblinux is a C library that provides architecture-independent access to Linux system calls.
just
-
I stopped worrying and loved Makefiles
I don't like makefiles, but I've been enjoying justfiles: https://github.com/casey/just
- Just a Command Runner
-
Ask HN: Any tool for managing large and variable command lines?
I started using just [0] on my projects and have been very happy so far. It is very similar to make but focused on commands rather than build outputs.
Define your recipes and then you can compose them as needed.
[0] https://github.com/casey/just
-
Ask HN: What software sparks joy when using?
just - https://github.com/casey/just
-
GitHub switched to Docker Compose v2, action needed
Welp there is absolute chaos in that thread -- guess it's not an April Fools joke.
I wonder if relying on CI for anything other than provisioning machines is a mistake -- maybe we should have never moved from doing things from local scripts written in $LANGUAGE.
That said, I'm probably biased since I'm a massive fan of things like `make` and more appropriately for the current age, `just`[0]
[0]: https://github.com/casey/just
-
Which command did you run 1731 days ago?
> When a command has some cognitive requirements I create a script with some ${1:-default} values and I store them all in $PATH enabled local/bin
I would consider using just for this:
https://github.com/casey/just
-
Using Make β writing less Makefile
Your coworker's experience is more principled: Make is a mediocre tool for executing commands. It wasn't ever designed for that. Although it is pretty common to see what you are mentioning in projects because it doesn't require installing a dependency.
For a repo where an easy to install (single binary) dependency is a non-issue, consider using just. [1] You get `just -l` where you can see all the command available, the ability to use different languages, and overall simpler command writing.
[1] https://github.com/casey/just
-
Show HN: Just.sh β compiler that turns Justfiles into portable shell scripts
This is fantastic, but I'd say that this solution is somewhat in response to this open issue from 2019:
https://github.com/casey/just/issues/429
I really wish just was included as a package in distributions.
-
Sharing Saturday #496
So far, I didn't work on new features at all but on stabilizing the ground for further development: 1. CMake lists and modules were rewritten a lot, now managing builds and their configurations is much lesser pain. 2. Brought in Justfile for regular tasks, and it's great, no less. 3. Linters, formatters, analyzers for almost all the code (except for Janet for now, as because of it being a niche and young technology, it didn't get enough attention yet). 4. ECS stub. Now runtime class doesn't look like a god object. 5. Started writing unit tests which didn't happen with my personal projects before and maybe indicates how serious am I about this one :D 6. Some of previously hardcoded data has been moved to INI files. Now, if I release the game in 10 years, and in 10 more years some eccentric person decides to make a variant of it, it will be slightly simpler.
-
Whatβs with DevOps engineers using `make` of all things?
i've grown to like this for my personal projects. https://github.com/casey/just
What are some alternatives?
cosmopolitan - build-once run-anywhere c library
Task - A task runner / simpler Make alternative written in Go
vscode-gitlens - Supercharge Git inside VS Code and unlock untapped knowledge within each repository β Visualize code authorship at a glance via Git blame annotations and CodeLens, seamlessly navigate and explore Git repositories, gain valuable insights via rich visualizations and powerful comparison commands, and so much more
cargo-make - Rust task runner and build tool.
rustix - Safe Rust bindings to POSIX-ish APIs
cargo-xtask
libratbag - A DBus daemon to configure input devices, mainly high-end and gaming mice
Taskfile - Repository for the Taskfile template.
minibase - small static userspace tools for Linux
CodeLLDB - A native debugger extension for VSCode based on LLDB
linux - Linux kernel source tree
cargo-release - Cargo subcommand `release`: everything about releasing a rust crate.