On Tuesday 04 August 2009 15:28:04 Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote: > Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote: > > Mike Frysinger wrote: > >> On Wednesday 22 July 2009 10:49:00 Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote: > >>> As described in thread > >>> http://lists.uclibc.org/pipermail/uclibc/2009-July/042670.html, uClibc > >>> build is currently broken on m68k. The attached patch ports relevant > >>> pieces of syscall handling from recent GLIBC thus fixing the problem. > >> > >> please try the patch i posted as yours appears to contain a lot of > >> stuff that the unification patch was supposed to, well, unify: > >> http://lists.uclibc.org/pipermail/uclibc/2009-July/042714.html > > > > I didn't notice your patch before. Do you plan to check it in soon? > > > >> also, do you really need your own syscall.[cS] ? wont the common > >> syscall.c work for you now ? > > > > It should work fine. In fact, my intention was to unify code from GLIBC > > and uClibc ;). > > I've added a couple of tweaks (removed syscall.c) to your patch and > verified that it builds on m68k. I didn't do runtime testing at this > point, but I will sometime later. > > FWIW, I eyeballed the patch and the common code and didn't spot any > problems. Do you necessarily need confirmation that runtime tests pass > or can you check in the patch as is?
i'd be nice, but really i want someone who actually understands m68k to say it looks sane. since it's been this long, i'll go ahead and merge it. -mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ uClibc mailing list uClibc@uclibc.org http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/uclibc