[+ newlib] On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 2:29 PM, Mike Frysinger <[email protected]> wrote: >> For callback.h, IWBN to add some documentation regarding why things >> are the way they are. E.g. if argn is preferred over argv, why? > > these things were created long before i had even heard of either project, so i > can only speculate on their history.
Understood. > i would guess that argv/argvlen made it > more difficult to do what most people actually want -- pass argc/argv to the > main function. and so argc/argn were born. I wouldn't mind hearing more, sounds pretty fishy. Though I understand it was before your time. I found these in the newlib archives: An inquiry into argv,argvlen: http://sourceware.org/ml/newlib/2006/msg00859.html Submission of argc,argn,argnlen: http://sourceware.org/ml/newlib/2006/msg00883.html I couldn't find any pushback when argn,argnlen were submitted. > all i really know is that argc/argn/argnlen are labeled as "the new approach" > in a few places, and as such, it is what the Blackfin port supports. Blech. I'm hesitant to approve the patch, but since this is sim,newlib I don't want to hold things up much just because of this. > it also seems like the syscall handling intended to handle argv at some point, > but someone didnt get around to implementing it. so i could flesh that out > too so that i could take the Blackfin argn/argc code and move it to > common/syscall.c in the sim. newlib: does anyone know the history of SYS_argc,argn,argnlen vs SYS_argv,argvlen beyond the above mentioned emails? _______________________________________________ Toolchain-devel mailing list [email protected] https://blackfin.uclinux.org/mailman/listinfo/toolchain-devel
