Date: Wed, 19 May 2021 09:38:36 -0500 From: Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org> To: Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com> Cc: Joakim Tjernlund <Joakim.Tjernlund@...inera.com>, "ldv@...linux.org" <ldv@...linux.org>, "mpe@...erman.id.au" <mpe@...erman.id.au>, "libc-dev@...ts.llvm.org" <libc-dev@...ts.llvm.org>, "musl@...ts.openwall.com" <musl@...ts.openwall.com>, "linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>, "linux-api@...r.kernel.org" <linux-api@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: Linux powerpc new system call instruction and ABI On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 06:42:40PM +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote: > Excerpts from Joakim Tjernlund's message of May 19, 2021 6:08 pm: > > I always figured the ppc way was superior. It begs the question if not the other archs should > > change instead? > > It is superior in some ways, not enough to be worth being different. The PowerPC syscall ABI *requires* using cr0.3 for indicating errors, you will have to do that whether you conflate the concepts of return code and error indicator or not! > Other archs are unlikely to change because it would be painful for > not much benefit. Other archs cannot easily change for much the same reason :-) > New system calls just should be made to not return > error numbers. Which sometimes is a difficult / non-natural / clumsy thing to do. Segher
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.