Followup to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
By author: Keith Owens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
>
> On 10 Nov 2000 17:10:00 -0800,
> "H. Peter Anvin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >We can mess with the ABI, but it requires a wholescale rev of the
> >entire system.
>
> AFAICT, there is nothing stopping us from redoing the kernel ABI to
> pass the first few parameters between kernel functions in registers.
> As long as the syscall interface is unchanged, that ABI change will
> only break binary modules (care_factor == 0). The ABI type would need
> to be added to the symbol version prefix, trivial.
>
Yes, the kernel is very different; however, the big win for an ABI
change is in user space.
AFAIK, I think Linus tried this once, but ran into bugs in gcc. We
might very well try again in 2.5.
-hpa
--
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> at work, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in private!
"Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot."
http://www.zytor.com/~hpa/puzzle.txt
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
