[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sun, 25 May 2014 11:52:57 +0200
From: Szabolcs Nagy <nsz@...t70.net>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: [UGLY PATCH] Support for no-legacy-syscalls archs
* Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> [2014-05-25 01:42:37 -0400]:
> Here's a proposed next phase for supporting no-legacy-syscall archs
> (aarch64 and or1k, among others). It's not complete but I think it
> covers most of the important syscalls for standard functionality (not
> linux-specific stuff tho). Some of them might be missing some error
> cases or otherwise buggy so I'm sending the patch for review before
> committing.
...
> +#ifdef SYS_poll
> __syscall(SYS_poll, pfd, 3, 0);
> +#else
> + __syscall(SYS_ppoll, pfd, 3, 0, 0, _NSIG/8);
> +#endif
cant it be done the other way around so new syscalls
are tried and then the classic ones are just fallbacks?
and what will happen with SYS_open?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
