This is the mail archive of the libc-hacker@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the glibc project.
Note that libc-hacker is a closed list. You may look at the archives of this list, but subscription and posting are not open.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
On Sat, Jan 04, 2003 at 06:07:05PM -0800, Richard Henderson wrote: > On Sat, Jan 04, 2003 at 12:57:15AM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > No longer wonder. I think it is writev. And alloca-cutoff.c is not needed > > in ld.so on IA-32/x86-64/IA-64/sparc/sparc64 because it has INTERNAL_SYSCALL > > macro implemented, while Alpha does not. > > That one would be good to have... > > The interface is lousy. > > (1) I'd have to generate an error return value. > > Unlike x86, the error indication is out of band from the > return value. Normally, this is a Good Thing. > > (2) The single place the error return value is checked, it's > done with a variable that's too narrow. > > I suggest that INTERNAL_SYSCALL be re-architected to return an error > indication as an output argument to the macro, i.e. > > result = INTERNAL_SYSCALL (errno, name, nr, args...) > > with errno == 0 on success. This lets you get rid of > INTERNAL_SYSCALL_ERROR_P and INTERNAL_SYSCALL_ERRNO. > In theory, you're not doing any additional work on x86 > (or others, since all callers should be checking the > return result anyway, right? And if you don't, the > computation should be removed as dead code. I agree. Jakub
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |