From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list linux-mips); Sat, 26 Oct 2002 22:34:57 +0200 (CEST) Received: from nixon.xkey.com ([209.245.148.124]:18657 "HELO nixon.xkey.com") by linux-mips.org with SMTP id ; Sat, 26 Oct 2002 22:34:56 +0200 Received: (qmail 22448 invoked from network); 26 Oct 2002 20:34:49 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO localhost.conservativecomputer.com) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 26 Oct 2002 20:34:49 -0000 Received: (from lindahl@localhost) by localhost.conservativecomputer.com (8.11.6/8.11.0) id g9QKW9702281 for linux-mips@linux-mips.org; Sat, 26 Oct 2002 13:32:09 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: localhost.localdomain: lindahl set sender to lindahl@keyresearch.com using -f Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2002 13:32:09 -0700 From: Greg Lindahl To: "'linux-mips@linux-mips.org'" Subject: Re: your mail Message-ID: <20021026133209.B2153@wumpus.attbi.com> References: <37A3C2F21006D611995100B0D0F9B73CBFE312@tnint11.telogy.design.ti.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <37A3C2F21006D611995100B0D0F9B73CBFE312@tnint11.telogy.design.ti.com>; from nmckee@telogy.com on Sat, Oct 26, 2002 at 03:48:27PM -0400 Return-Path: X-Envelope-To: <"|/home/ecartis/ecartis -s linux-mips"> (uid 0) X-Orcpt: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org Original-Recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org X-archive-position: 526 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org Errors-to: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org X-original-sender: lindahl@keyresearch.com Precedence: bulk X-list: linux-mips On Sat, Oct 26, 2002 at 03:48:27PM -0400, Zajerko-McKee, Nick wrote: > I'm porting some code from x86 to mips(32) and noticed that in > include/asm-mips/siginfo.h differs from include/asm-i386/siginfo.h in the > order of elements of the sigchld structure. Was this an oversight or a > design decision? I would think that it would be desirable to be almost the > same as the x86 for userland ease of portability... User programs normally get recompiled, so anything using the proper includes IS portable. The issue only appears if you are using binary translation of x86 programs on mips. For example, this is one: http://www.transitives.com/products.htm For this, you need to write a system call translation layer which rearranges things appropriately. An existing example is the o32 layer in mips64, and soon the n32 layer in mips64. -- greg