From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailserv2.iuinc.com (qmailr@mailserv2.iuinc.com [206.245.164.55]) by sod.res.cmu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id XAA17797 for ; Sun, 28 Mar 1999 23:08:36 -0500 Received: (from sieler@localhost) by bart.allegro.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) id UAA29047 for hppa-linux@thepuffingroup.com; Sun, 28 Mar 1999 20:08:15 -0800 From: Stan Sieler Message-Id: <199903290408.UAA29047@bart.allegro.com> Subject: Re: [hppa-linux] syscall work To: hppa-linux@thepuffingroup.com Date: Sun, 28 Mar 1999 20:08:15 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: from "Kumar" at Mar 25, 99 09:01:05 pm MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII List-ID: Hi, There may be a reason to avoid the GATE instruction...I've seen some HP PA-RISC systems where GATE has given way to simply marking the "gateway" page as non-executable, and relying on a trap handler to detect the gateway access. The final result is the same... an architected method of doing a system call. (I can only conjecture that there is a reason for this...but I don't know what it is.) Perhaps we can get an HP person to comment? > It does not matter as long as the gateway instruction is on the "special" > page. Probably one wants to put a nop before the gateway instruction. -- Stan Sieler sieler@allegro.com http://www.allegro.com/sieler.html