From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list linux-mips); Wed, 14 Mar 2007 17:49:41 +0000 (GMT) Received: from return.false.org ([66.207.162.98]:14004 "EHLO return.false.org") by ftp.linux-mips.org with ESMTP id S20022459AbXCNRtf (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Mar 2007 17:49:35 +0000 Received: from return.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by return.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23D654B267; Wed, 14 Mar 2007 12:48:59 -0500 (CDT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (dsl093-172-095.pit1.dsl.speakeasy.net [66.93.172.95]) by return.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F34CF4B262; Wed, 14 Mar 2007 12:48:54 -0500 (CDT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1HRXao-0006EE-IA; Wed, 14 Mar 2007 13:48:54 -0400 Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 13:48:54 -0400 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Ralf Baechle Cc: Peter Watkins , linux-mips@linux-mips.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Have sigpoll and sigio band field match glibc for n64 Message-ID: <20070314174854.GA23917@caradoc.them.org> References: <1173469586997-git-send-email-pwatkins@sicortex.com> <20070310132423.GA1295@linux-mips.org> <20070313141951.GA3206@caradoc.them.org> <20070313164107.GA5004@linux-mips.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070313164107.GA5004@linux-mips.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) 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: 14471 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: dan@debian.org Precedence: bulk X-list: linux-mips On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 04:41:07PM +0000, Ralf Baechle wrote: > On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 10:19:51AM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > > This will break the ABI only for uses of si_band and si_fd, and only > > on n64. Anyone see a reason why I shouldn't change glibc? > > > > Ralf, as I mentioned on IRC, I've got bigger worries about siginfo. > > Shouldn't n32 be using the same siginfo as o32? It's got pointers in it. > > Yes, you're right. Will you cook up a patch? I won't have time any time soon - my MIPS board isn't hooked up. If no one has by the time I get around to it next, though, I'll try. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery