[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4F431665.3010004@zytor.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 19:58:29 -0800
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@....edu>
CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
mingo@...nel.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
hjl.tools@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 30/30] x32: Add x32 VDSO support
On 02/20/2012 04:12 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
> Would it make sense to remove the non-__vdso-prefixed weak symbols?
> AFAICT they are somewhere between useless (because the __vdso symbols
> are unambiguous), confusing (has anyone not read this and said "huh?"),
> and wrong (they are not interchangeable with glibc's symbols as they
> return different values).
>
> We're stuck with them on x86-64, but x32 is new and has no
> backwards-compatibility issues.
>
What about non-glibc?
-hpa
--
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.
--
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