On Sunday 06 September 2009 04:08:14 Khem Raj wrote: > On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 12:22 PM, Mike Frysinger<vap...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > On Wednesday 19 August 2009 15:02:18 Khem Raj wrote: > >> On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 4:23 PM, Mike Frysinger<vap...@gentoo.org> wrote: > >> > On Tuesday 18 August 2009 18:42:36 Khem Raj wrote: > >> >> If we need to revive OABI then we might have to find a way to make it > >> >> work, right now mostly people use EABI and there it should work ok. > >> > > >> > working OABI is still a requirement > >> > >> That would mean that arm will have to have exception to this common > >> syscall stuff that you added. > > > > i dont see why it would, but i dont know arm asm. the common syscall > > stuff is designed for ports to completely override the common defines > > without any hacks. > > OK I have reverted the patch.
does reverting syscall.c only really fix the problem ? wont it just come up again depending on how the syscall macros get used ? -mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ uClibc mailing list uClibc@uclibc.org http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/uclibc