Date: Wed, 19 May 2021 17:55:35 +1000 From: Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com> To: Joakim Tjernlund <Joakim.Tjernlund@...inera.com>, "ldv@...linux.org" <ldv@...linux.org>, "mpe@...erman.id.au" <mpe@...erman.id.au> Cc: "libc-dev@...ts.llvm.org" <libc-dev@...ts.llvm.org>, "linux-api@...r.kernel.org" <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>, "linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>, "musl@...ts.openwall.com" <musl@...ts.openwall.com> Subject: Re: Linux powerpc new system call instruction and ABI Excerpts from Joakim Tjernlund's message of May 19, 2021 5:33 pm: > On Wed, 2021-05-19 at 02:13 +0300, Dmitry V. Levin wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 06:12:01PM +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote: >> [...] >> > - Error handling: The consensus among kernel, glibc, and musl is to move to >> > using negative return values in r3 rather than CR0[SO]=1 to indicate error, >> > which matches most other architectures, and is closer to a function call. > > What about syscalls like times(2) which can return -1 without it being an error? They do become errors / indistinguishable and have to be dealt with by libc or userspace. Which does follow what most architectures do (all except ia64, mips, sparc, and powerpc actually). Interesting question though, it should have been noted. Thanks, Nick
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.