From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.2 required=3.0 tests=DATE_IN_PAST_03_06, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CEADC2BB55 for ; Thu, 16 Apr 2020 14:51:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [203.11.71.2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2769421D93 for ; Thu, 16 Apr 2020 14:51:24 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 2769421D93 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=port70.net Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [IPv6:2401:3900:2:1::3]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4932Gs0hYmzDrh7 for ; Fri, 17 Apr 2020 00:51:17 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=port70.net (client-ip=81.7.13.123; helo=port70.net; envelope-from=nsz@port70.net; receiver=) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=port70.net Received: from port70.net (port70.net [81.7.13.123]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49327d3TwGzDrPY for ; Fri, 17 Apr 2020 00:44:58 +1000 (AEST) Received: by port70.net (Postfix, from userid 1002) id 79BA6ABEC0BA; Thu, 16 Apr 2020 11:58:00 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2020 11:58:00 +0200 From: Szabolcs Nagy To: Nicholas Piggin via Libc-alpha Subject: Re: [musl] Powerpc Linux 'scv' system call ABI proposal take 2 Message-ID: <20200416095800.GC23945@port70.net> Mail-Followup-To: Nicholas Piggin via Libc-alpha , Rich Felker , libc-dev@lists.llvm.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, musl@lists.openwall.com References: <1586931450.ub4c8cq8dj.astroid@bobo.none> <20200415225539.GL11469@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <1586994952.nnxigedbu2.astroid@bobo.none> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1586994952.nnxigedbu2.astroid@bobo.none> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: libc-dev@lists.llvm.org, Rich Felker , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, musl@lists.openwall.com Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" * Nicholas Piggin via Libc-alpha [2020-04-16 10:16:54 +1000]: > Well it would have to test HWCAP and patch in or branch to two > completely different sequences including register save/restores yes. > You could have the same asm and matching clobbers to put the sequence > inline and then you could patch the one sc/scv instruction I suppose. how would that 'patch' work? there are many reasons why you don't want libc to write its .text