Re: [RFC/PATCH] powerpc: Cleanup 32/64 bit syscall int sign ext.

On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 05:01:36PM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: >I noticed that our ABI says callers are responsible for sign extending. >That means that all int, long or similarly signed arguments to syscalls >must be explicitly sign-extended. > >We already have wrappers to do that for -so

Re: [RFC/PATCH] powerpc: Cleanup 32/64 bit syscall int sign ext.

On Thu, 2008-09-25 at 13:52 -0500, Scott Wood wrote: > On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 05:01:36PM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > +#define XGLUE(a,b) a##b > > +#define GLUE(a,b) XGLUE(a,b) > > GLUE() doesn't appear to be used. Yup, obsolete remains from an earlier variant. Ben. __

Re: [RFC/PATCH] powerpc: Cleanup 32/64 bit syscall int sign ext.

On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 05:01:36PM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > +#define XGLUE(a,b) a##b > +#define GLUE(a,b) XGLUE(a,b) GLUE() doesn't appear to be used. -Scott ___ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/

[RFC/PATCH] powerpc: Cleanup 32/64 bit syscall int sign ext.

I noticed that our ABI says callers are responsible for sign extending. That means that all int, long or similarly signed arguments to syscalls must be explicitly sign-extended. We already have wrappers to do that for -some- syscalls in arch code. Those are in C and pretty ugly, copy/pasting a bun