On 24 April 2012 17:35, Mark Salter <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, 2012-04-24 at 17:00 +0200, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote: >> On 24 April 2012 16:50, Mark Salter <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Upstream Linux kernel development is requiring new architecture ports to >> > use only the default set of generic syscalls. This means familiar syscalls >> >> http://lists.uclibc.org/pipermail/uclibc/2011-September/045726.html >> > > Heh. I knew there had to be patch out there. I saw some other older ones > for specific syscalls, but never saw yours in my searching. > > Looks pretty close to what I've been using but doesn't seem to have > generated much interest. I missed the no_cancel bits, but I figured > there would be such things broken in my patch too. > > So, is there any other concerns besides the cancellation? I saw some > concern about bloat, but if the approach is to use the noat syscalls > if they exist, it shouldn't bloat ports using older kernels.
Do you have size(1) measures for using the *at() versus noat? thanks, _______________________________________________ uClibc mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/uclibc
