On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 09:18:44AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Rich,
>
> On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 5:03 AM, Rich Felker wrote:
> > From: Rich Felker
> >
> > Historically SH-2 Linux (and originally uClinux) used a syscall
> > calling convention incompatible with the established SH-3/4
Hi Rich,
On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 5:03 AM, Rich Felker wrote:
> From: Rich Felker
>
> Historically SH-2 Linux (and originally uClinux) used a syscall
> calling convention incompatible with the established SH-3/4 Linux ABI.
> This choice was made because the trap range used by the existing ABI,
>
Hi Rich,
On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 5:03 AM, Rich Felker dal...@libc.org wrote:
From: Rich Felker dal...@libc.org
Historically SH-2 Linux (and originally uClinux) used a syscall
calling convention incompatible with the established SH-3/4 Linux ABI.
This choice was made because the trap range
On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 09:18:44AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
Hi Rich,
On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 5:03 AM, Rich Felker dal...@libc.org wrote:
From: Rich Felker dal...@libc.org
Historically SH-2 Linux (and originally uClinux) used a syscall
calling convention incompatible with the
From: Rich Felker
Historically SH-2 Linux (and originally uClinux) used a syscall
calling convention incompatible with the established SH-3/4 Linux ABI.
This choice was made because the trap range used by the existing ABI,
0x10-0x17, overlaps with the hardware exception/interrupt trap range
From: Rich Felker dal...@libc.org
Historically SH-2 Linux (and originally uClinux) used a syscall
calling convention incompatible with the established SH-3/4 Linux ABI.
This choice was made because the trap range used by the existing ABI,
0x10-0x17, overlaps with the hardware exception/interrupt
6 matches
Mail list logo