On Tuesday, July 12, 2011 20:43:45 Rich Felker wrote: > On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 05:47:22PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > >> - most, but not all, arches are the same (but maybe i remember this > > >> wrong) > > > > > > Why do the kernel developers keep doing idiotic things like this? > > > *sigh* > > > > well, once you're stuck with an overlapping pile, there's really > > nothing you can do to sort them out. you might be able to blame the > > original source, but past that, they're pretty much pucked. > > Well they could be consistent and either say everything new is going > to use universal generic constants and structures with clean > alignment, or they could say they're always going to reuse the > existing arch-specific stuff. But reusing it on some archs and using > new generics on others make a whole new meta level of arch-dependence > that's even a bigger pain to deal with.
often times, it's simply not possible. take the bits that every arch defines, OR them together, and then AND them with all the other arches. often times there will be no common bit values that are available. what they're doing with the asm-generic stuff makes sense and is really the only option when maintaining ABI is required. existing arches with warts have to live with them, but new arches are based on the common code and do not. -mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ uClibc mailing list uClibc@uclibc.org http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/uclibc
