From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from sc8-sf-mx1-b.sourceforge.net ([10.3.1.91] helo=mail.sourceforge.net) by sc8-sf-list1-new.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GHnpi-0004Yj-IP for user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 28 Aug 2006 13:35:46 -0700 Received: from saraswathi.solana.com ([198.99.130.12]) by mail.sourceforge.net with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.44) id 1GHnpg-0007fD-3F for user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 28 Aug 2006 13:35:46 -0700 Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 16:35:14 -0400 From: Jeff Dike Message-ID: <20060828203514.GC6728@ccure.user-mode-linux.org> References: <20060821215641.GQ11651@stusta.de> <200608261256.36654.blaisorblade@yahoo.it> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200608261256.36654.blaisorblade@yahoo.it> Subject: Re: [uml-devel] arch/um/sys-i386/setjmp.S: useless #ifdef _REGPARM's? List-Id: The user-mode Linux development list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: user-mode-linux-devel-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net Errors-To: user-mode-linux-devel-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net To: Blaisorblade Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, Adrian Bunk On Sat, Aug 26, 2006 at 12:56:36PM +0200, Blaisorblade wrote: > Can anybody explain me how can we use REGPARM if we have to link with host > glibc? Umm, yeah, good point. This regparam behavior is different from the old behavior, where regparam functions had to be declared as such. However, this is a potential problem with all regparam users, who all presumably use libc, so I'd imagine it works somehow. > If we are going to use klibc instead of glibc that's ok (and this is not the > case I'm talking about), but I do not know that plan (and nobody discussed > the implications). I've been idly considering that, but it's no more than idle consideration right now. Jeff ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642 _______________________________________________ User-mode-linux-devel mailing list User-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/user-mode-linux-devel From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751499AbWH1UiG (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Aug 2006 16:38:06 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751503AbWH1UiF (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Aug 2006 16:38:05 -0400 Received: from saraswathi.solana.com ([198.99.130.12]:7046 "EHLO saraswathi.solana.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751499AbWH1UiC (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Aug 2006 16:38:02 -0400 Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 16:35:14 -0400 From: Jeff Dike To: Blaisorblade Cc: user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, Adrian Bunk , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [uml-devel] arch/um/sys-i386/setjmp.S: useless #ifdef _REGPARM's? Message-ID: <20060828203514.GC6728@ccure.user-mode-linux.org> References: <20060821215641.GQ11651@stusta.de> <200608261256.36654.blaisorblade@yahoo.it> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200608261256.36654.blaisorblade@yahoo.it> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Aug 26, 2006 at 12:56:36PM +0200, Blaisorblade wrote: > Can anybody explain me how can we use REGPARM if we have to link with host > glibc? Umm, yeah, good point. This regparam behavior is different from the old behavior, where regparam functions had to be declared as such. However, this is a potential problem with all regparam users, who all presumably use libc, so I'd imagine it works somehow. > If we are going to use klibc instead of glibc that's ok (and this is not the > case I'm talking about), but I do not know that plan (and nobody discussed > the implications). I've been idly considering that, but it's no more than idle consideration right now. Jeff