On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 10:52:57PM +0100, Kristof Provost wrote: > C calls to syscall like 'syscall(351, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6);' resulted in > the following ftrace: 'sys_enter: NR 351 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 5)'. > > This is because the syscall function failed to copy the 6th argument > into the appropriate register. In combination with the function calling > convention this meant that the 5th argument was repeated into the 6th.
Applied. wasn't there a subtle difference between the bnslr ''/+/- variants? Don't remeber offhand.. PS: missing SOB line as per uclibc.org/developing#contrib but the patch is obvious from the description this time. thanks, _______________________________________________ uClibc mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/uclibc
