On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 11:35:27AM -0700, Luck, Tony wrote:
> Looks more complex than necessary. Why do you want to execute
> an arch specific script to list the __IGNORE symbols? That would
> allow an arch to generate a list with sed/perl/etc. but that
> looks like overkill.
>
> If you just hav
Looks more complex than necessary. Why do you want to execute
an arch specific script to list the __IGNORE symbols? That would
allow an arch to generate a list with sed/perl/etc. but that
looks like overkill.
If you just have an arch specific file with the right defines.
E.g. for x86_64 in inclu
On Mon, May 07, 2007 at 03:51:49PM -0700, Luck, Tony wrote:
> > You could add them to scripts/checksyscalls.sh itself -- I think it's
> > fairly unlikely that those are syscalls which a new arch port is going
> > to 'forget' :)
>
> Like this?
>
> diff --git a/scripts/checksyscalls.sh b/scripts/ch
> You could add them to scripts/checksyscalls.sh itself -- I think it's
> fairly unlikely that those are syscalls which a new arch port is going
> to 'forget' :)
Like this?
diff --git a/scripts/checksyscalls.sh b/scripts/checksyscalls.sh
index f98171f..4d49056 100755
--- a/scripts/checksyscalls.s
On Mon, 2007-05-07 at 15:29 -0700, Tony Luck wrote:
> On 3/21/07, Sam Ravnborg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Most system calls seem to get added to i386 first. This patch
> > automatically generates a warning for any new system call which is
> > implemented on i386 but not the architecture current
On 3/21/07, Sam Ravnborg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Most system calls seem to get added to i386 first. This patch
automatically generates a warning for any new system call which is
implemented on i386 but not the architecture currently being compiled.
This is now upstream, and so I see a bunch
6 matches
Mail list logo
