[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1812121811080.21643@digraph.polyomino.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2018 18:14:00 +0000
From: Joseph Myers <joseph@...esourcery.com>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
CC: <tg@...bsd.de>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>, <vapier@...too.org>,
"H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@...il.com>, Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>,
<x32@...ldd.debian.org>, Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
Subject: Re: Can we drop upstream Linux x32 support?
On Wed, 12 Dec 2018, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > MIPS had o32, n32, n64 since like forever.
>
> o32 and n32 are practically the same, the only difference on the
> syscall ABI that I can see are the actual syscall numbers, and
> the 'struct sigcontext' definition.
And for syscalls that have 64-bit arguments, n32 generally passes those in
a single register (like n64), not pairs of registers (like o32). But,
yes, userspace structure layout for n32 is generally much closer to o32
than to n64.
--
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@...esourcery.com
Powered by blists - more mailing lists