Re: _syscall2 in PIC code on ix86

From: H. Peter Anvin (hpa@transmeta.com)
Date: Tue Jan 18 2000 - 02:05:33 EST


Keith Owens wrote:
>
> On 17 Jan 2000 20:50:54 -0800,
> hpa@transmeta.com (H. Peter Anvin) wrote:
> >By author: Keith Owens <kaos@ocs.com.au>
> >> Please do not change the kernel to add _syscall_pic code, it is
> >> unnecessary bloat. It is a userspace problem which needs a userspace
> >> solution. I have these working defines for syscall_pic, but they
> >> should not go in the kernel.
> >
> >I don't really think that's the case; it's a kernel interface issue,
> >and since it's just a bunch of macros it doesn't add any bloat to the
> >kernel proper.
>
> Except that somebody has to define and maintain _syscall_pic for every
> architecture, and for all the combinations of -fcaller-saves,
> -fomit-frame-pointer, -pg etc. glibc 2.1.x has already done this with
> their generic syscall() interface, why add the same workload to the
> kernel?
>

I don't really think the all combinations is a worry -- few of these
options affect these things if properly written once.

Does syscall() produce proper inline code?

        -hpa

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jan 23 2000 - 21:00:17 EST