On Tue, 2012-04-24 at 17:48 +0200, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote: > 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?
I have some numbers, but they are not apples to apples (different uClibc versions). I can generate some more useful numbers and post them. _______________________________________________ uClibc mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/uclibc
