This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sourceware.org mailing list for the glibc project.
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 15 Dec 2015 07:50, H.J. Lu wrote: > On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 6:58 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > On 14 Dec 2015 20:33, H.J. Lu wrote: > >> On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 7:59 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > >> > On 14 Dec 2015 19:27, H.J. Lu wrote: > >> >> + ({ \ > >> >> + unsigned long long int resultvar; \ > >> >> + LOAD_ARGS_1 (buf) \ > >> >> + LOAD_REGS_1 \ > >> >> + asm volatile ( \ > >> >> + "syscall\n\t" \ > >> >> + : "=a" (resultvar) \ > >> >> + : "0" (__NR_times) ASM_ARGS_1 : "memory", "cc", "r11", "cx"); \ > >> > > >> > should the cc/r11/cx be made into a sysdep define ? > >> > -mike > >> > >> I don't feel strongly about it. Glibc folks work on x86-64 system calls > >> know what they are doing. > > > > that sort of thinking is what leads to desync in code paths (it's not > > obvious at all that updates to the common sysdep.h needs to also be > > deployed to this specific file), plus gcc changes behavior over time > > and refines asm constraints. i'm sure you can find plenty of these > > examples in the diff arches as i recall them going by in the past. > > > > not that i'm strongly saying "make the define", just taking umbrage > > to your statement here. > > It belongs a separate patch: > > https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=patch;h=d4f465df65a5723ede4cf933afee5582312fc603 > > I can submit it if we agree it is necessary. i like it, but i leave it to your discretion ;) -mike
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |