Hi Randy, On Sat, Dec 29, 2018 at 08:50:09AM -0800, Randy Dunlap wrote: > This is a good summary IMO. Thanks. > And it's in good shape -- doesn't *require* any fixes. > But if you do make any changes to it, here are a few suggestions. :)
Thanks very much. > > + * This file is designed to be used as a libc alternative for minimal > > programs > > + * with very limited requirements. It consists of a small number of > > syscall and > > + * types definitions, and the minimal startup code needed to call main(). > > type Funny, I hesitated on this one and "fixed" it :-) > > + * All syscalls are declared as static functions so that they can be > > optimized > > + * away by the compiler when not used. > > + * > > + * Syscalls are split between 3 levels : > > Instead of "between", use either "among" or "into". and then "levels:". Will do, thanks. > > + * - the lower level is the arch-specific syscall() definition, > > consisting in > > + * assembly code in compound expressions. These ones are called > > Apparently "these ones" is acceptable in UK English, not so in US English. Oh I didn't know, I've used it quite a bit in the last decades, thinking it was a valid plural for "this one". It seems like I should use "These" instead, feel free to suggest otherwise. > I don't like it, but we do accept UK English here. :) I prefer to be corrected and to avoid using bad English, whether it's US or UK, as much as I hate to make mistakes in French. > > + * Some stdint-like integer types are defined. These ones are valid on all > > These are valid on all OK, makes sense according to the point above. > ciao. thanks. I'm applying the changes right now to my local tree and will respin a version. Thank you! Willy
