[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <fb9b6a6099855bd00efc6ffe540ccad14dd9a365.camel@infinera.com>
Date: Wed, 19 May 2021 08:08:03 +0000
From: Joakim Tjernlund <Joakim.Tjernlund@...inera.com>
To: "ldv@...linux.org" <ldv@...linux.org>, "mpe@...erman.id.au"
<mpe@...erman.id.au>, "npiggin@...il.com" <npiggin@...il.com>
CC: "linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
"libc-dev@...ts.llvm.org" <libc-dev@...ts.llvm.org>,
"musl@...ts.openwall.com" <musl@...ts.openwall.com>,
"linux-api@...r.kernel.org" <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Linux powerpc new system call instruction and ABI
On Wed, 2021-05-19 at 17:55 +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
> Excerpts from Joakim Tjernlund's message of May 19, 2021 5:33 pm:
> > On Wed, 2021-05-19 at 02:13 +0300, Dmitry V. Levin wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 06:12:01PM +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > > - Error handling: The consensus among kernel, glibc, and musl is to move to
> > > > using negative return values in r3 rather than CR0[SO]=1 to indicate error,
> > > > which matches most other architectures, and is closer to a function call.
> >
> > What about syscalls like times(2) which can return -1 without it being an error?
>
> They do become errors / indistinguishable and have to be dealt with by
> libc or userspace. Which does follow what most architectures do (all
> except ia64, mips, sparc, and powerpc actually).
>
> Interesting question though, it should have been noted.
>
> Thanks,
> Nick
I always figured the ppc way was superior. It begs the question if not the other archs should
change instead?
Jocke
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
