From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by oss.sgi.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) id f4UHum109881 for linux-mips-outgoing; Wed, 30 May 2001 10:56:48 -0700 Received: from hermes.mvista.com (gateway-1237.mvista.com [12.44.186.158]) by oss.sgi.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with SMTP id f4UHuih09871 for ; Wed, 30 May 2001 10:56:44 -0700 Received: from mvista.com (IDENT:jsun@orion.mvista.com [10.0.0.75]) by hermes.mvista.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f4UHtc023885; Wed, 30 May 2001 10:55:38 -0700 Message-ID: <3B1533EB.924ACA05@mvista.com> Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 10:54:51 -0700 From: Jun Sun X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.18 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Maciej W. Rozycki" CC: "Kevin D. Kissell" , linux-mips@oss.sgi.com Subject: Re: MIPS_ATOMIC_SET again (Re: newest kernel References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mips@oss.sgi.com Precedence: bulk "Maciej W. Rozycki" wrote: > > On Tue, 29 May 2001, Jun Sun wrote: > > > I think system V requires _test_and_set() being included in the libsys dynamic > > library. Does Linux want to be sysv compatible? If so, we should removed the > > inlined _test_and_set(). > > Why should we remove the inlined _test_and_set()? We do have a number of > other inlined functions in glibc, e.g. memcpy() and friends in > (not for MIPS, actually, but for other hosts), yet it does > not make glibc SVR4 incompatible. Of course we always provide non-inlined > versions of such functions as well -- check with objdump if unsure. > Hmm, I think to write SYSV compatible code one should not used inlined ABI calls. Otherwise the binary would bypass libsys and becomes not portable among SYSV machines. On the other hand, what other MIPS SYSV platforms are there for us to be compatible? IRIX? :-) > Note they are *extern* inline. > I don't think "extern" changes the picture here because once the call is inlined the code will bypass libsys - unless my previous understanding is wrong. Jun