Re: netbsd32_{,u}int64 in sys/types.h for compat/sys/siginfo.h

* pass in COMPAT_NETBSD32 on amd64, except for that involved with XMM registers. I will examine how to implement PT32_[GS]ETXMMREGS. I wrote a draft version of patch which adds PT32_[GS]ETXMMREGS support: http://www.netbsd.org/~rin/amd64-PT32_GSETXMMREGS-20191121.patch With this patch, XMM-related

Re: netbsd32_{,u}int64 in sys/types.h for compat/sys/siginfo.h

I wrote a draft version of patch which adds PT32_[GS]ETXMMREGS support: > > http://www.netbsd.org/~rin/amd64-PT32_GSETXMMREGS-20191121.patch > > With this patch, XMM-related tests pass for COMPAT_NETBSD32 on amd64. > > Some remarks: > > (1) PT_[GS]ETXMMREGS ptrace(2) commands are added

Re: __{read,write}_once

Le 18/11/2019 à 19:49, David Holland a écrit : On Sun, Nov 17, 2019 at 02:35:43PM +, Mindaugas Rasiukevicius wrote: > David Holland wrote: > > > I see the potential source of confusion, but just think about: what > > > could "atomic" possibly mean for loads or stores? A load is

Re: __{read,write}_once

Date:Thu, 21 Nov 2019 19:19:51 +0100 From:Maxime Villard Message-ID: | So in the end which name do we use? Are people really unhappy with _racy()? | At least it has a general meaning, and does not imply atomicity or ordering. I dislike naming discussions, as in

Re: netbsd32_{,u}int64 in sys/types.h for compat/sys/siginfo.h

ement PT32_[GS]ETXMMREGS. > >I wrote a draft version of patch which adds PT32_[GS]ETXMMREGS support: > >http://www.netbsd.org/~rin/amd64-PT32_GSETXMMREGS-20191121.patch > >With this patch, XMM-related tests pass for COMPAT_NETBSD32 on amd64. > >Some remarks: > >(1) PT

PT32_[GS]ETXMMREGS for amd64 (Was: netbsd32_{,u}int64 in sys/types.h for compat/sys/siginfo.h)

Hi, thank you for your review! On 2019/11/22 0:48, Kamil Rytarowski wrote: On 21.11.2019 10:49, Rin Okuyama wrote: ... I wrote a draft version of patch which adds PT32_[GS]ETXMMREGS support: http://www.netbsd.org/~rin/amd64-PT32_GSETXMMREGS-20191121.patch With this patch, XMM-related tests

Re: __{read,write}_once

Date:Fri, 22 Nov 2019 01:04:56 +0100 From:Kamil Rytarowski Message-ID: <1a9d9b40-42fe-be08-d7b3-e6ecead5b...@gmx.com> | I think that picking C11 terminology is the way forward. Use a name like that iff the intent is to also exactly match the semantics implied,

Re: __{read,write}_once

On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 07:19:51PM +0100, Maxime Villard wrote: > Le 18/11/2019 à 19:49, David Holland a écrit : > >On Sun, Nov 17, 2019 at 02:35:43PM +, Mindaugas Rasiukevicius wrote: > > > David Holland wrote: > > > > > I see the potential source of confusion, but just think about: what

Re: __{read,write}_once

On 22.11.2019 00:53, Robert Elz wrote: > Date:Thu, 21 Nov 2019 19:19:51 +0100 > From:Maxime Villard > Message-ID: > > | So in the end which name do we use? Are people really unhappy with > _racy()? > | At least it has a general meaning, and does not imply

Re: PT32_[GS]ETXMMREGS for amd64 (Was: netbsd32_{,u}int64 in sys/types.h for compat/sys/siginfo.h)

t; > > > > http://www.netbsd.org/~rin/amd64-PT32_GSETXMMREGS-20191121.patch > > > > > > With this patch, XMM-related tests pass for COMPAT_NETBSD32 on amd64. > > > > > > Some remarks: > > > > > > (1) PT_[GS]ETXMMREGS pt

re: __{read,write}_once

_always()?

Re: netbsd32_{,u}int64 in sys/types.h for compat/sys/siginfo.h

On 2019/11/22 10:56, Christos Zoulas wrote: In article <679493cf-3e85-f56d-85e4-dfaf7958a...@gmail.com>, Rin Okuyama wrote: ... This was my misunderstanding. These codes are used when tracer is 64-bit and traced is 32-bit. Don't know whether this is useful though... Yes, and someone broke

Re: __{read,write}_once

On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 08:42:19AM +0700, Robert Elz wrote: > Date:Fri, 22 Nov 2019 01:04:56 +0100 > From:Kamil Rytarowski > Message-ID: <1a9d9b40-42fe-be08-d7b3-e6ecead5b...@gmx.com> > > > | I think that picking C11 terminology is the way forward. > > Use a name