On 20 August 2014 21:48:33 CEST, Rich Felker <[email protected]> wrote:
>No problem. As far as I can tell, the new version is equivalent to >what's in glibc now, and despite the old version supposedly being >copied from glibc, I can't find it in the glibc history. I am Austin, where's that orcc coming from? >interested in what the incorrect check was doing though, and why it >was wrong. orcc %i1,%g0,%o1 or %i1 with 0 and store it to o1. mov %i2,%o0 Put input arg #2 into the first syscall arg. So we now effectively lose the first input arg, no? What am I missing? _______________________________________________ uClibc mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/uclibc
