Re: [PATCH v3 00/48] Support for cut-down Linux syscalls

2013-02-06 Thread Will Newton
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 9:45 PM, Markos Chandras markos.chand...@gmail.com wrote: On 5 February 2013 19:08, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer rep.dot@gmail.com wrote: On 23 January 2013 12:41, Markos Chandras markos.chand...@gmail.com wrote: From: Markos Chandras markos.chand...@imgtec.com Hi,

Re: [PATCH v3 00/48] Support for cut-down Linux syscalls

2013-02-06 Thread Markos Chandras
On 6 February 2013 10:06, Will Newton will.new...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 9:45 PM, Markos Chandras markos.chand...@gmail.com wrote: On 5 February 2013 19:08, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer rep.dot@gmail.com wrote: On 23 January 2013 12:41, Markos Chandras

Re: [PATCH V2] libc: deal with aux vect inside __uClibc_main only if !SHARED

2013-02-06 Thread Carmelo AMOROSO
On 14/12/2012 11.49, Filippo ARCIDIACONO wrote: On 12/14/2012 11:40 AM, Filippo ARCIDIACONO wrote: It's not safe to use the aux vect inside __uClibc_main if we are running with shared libraries, because it could have been already modified. For example, if some constructor plays with

Re: [PATCH v3 00/48] Support for cut-down Linux syscalls

2013-02-06 Thread Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
On 6 February 2013 14:02, Markos Chandras markos.chand...@gmail.com wrote: On 6 February 2013 10:06, Will Newton will.new...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 9:45 PM, Markos Chandras markos.chand...@gmail.com wrote: On 5 February 2013 19:08, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer

Re: [PATCH v3 00/48] Support for cut-down Linux syscalls

2013-02-06 Thread Markos Chandras
On 6 February 2013 16:03, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer rep.dot@gmail.com wrote: On 6 February 2013 14:02, Markos Chandras markos.chand...@gmail.com wrote: On 6 February 2013 10:06, Will Newton will.new...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 9:45 PM, Markos Chandras

Re: [PATCH v3 00/48] Support for cut-down Linux syscalls

2013-02-06 Thread Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
On 6 February 2013 17:20, Markos Chandras markos.chand...@gmail.com wrote: Looks pretty good, thanks. One thing though: I really don't like common-no-legacy. Can you propose a different way instread? How about: - common-new - new-interfaces generic generic-syscalls generic wouldn't