[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ADDEBCD9C145E542A8688C29F1FBDCB9013041770F@orsmsx502.amr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 09:59:14 -0700
From: "Anvin, H Peter" <h.peter.anvin@...el.com>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@...il.com>
CC: GCC Development <gcc@....gnu.org>,
GNU C Library <libc-alpha@...rceware.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"x32-abi@...glegroups.com" <x32-abi@...glegroups.com>
Subject: RE: X32 project status update
The eventual goal is to merge it with the x86-64 syscall table, although we're still working out exactly where we can do it.
-hpa
-----Original Message-----
From: Arnd Bergmann [mailto:arnd@...db.de]
Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2011 8:28
To: H.J. Lu
Cc: GCC Development; GNU C Library; LKML; x32-abi@...glegroups.com; Anvin, H Peter
Subject: Re: X32 project status update
On Saturday 21 May 2011 17:01:33 H.J. Lu wrote:
> This is the x32 project status update:
>
> https://sites.google.com/site/x32abi/
>
I've had another look at the kernel patch. It basically
looks all good, but the system call table appears to
diverge from the x86_64 list for no (documented) reason,
in the calls above 302. Is that intentional?
I can see why you might want to keep the numbers identical,
but if they are already different, why not use the generic
system call table from asm-generic/unistd.h for the new
ABI?
Arnd
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists