linux-mips
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: MIPS_ATOMIC_SET again (Re: newest kernel

To: "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@ds2.pg.gda.pl>
Subject: Re: MIPS_ATOMIC_SET again (Re: newest kernel
From: Jun Sun <jsun@mvista.com>
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 13:58:21 -0700
Cc: Florian Lohoff <flo@rfc822.org>, ralf@oss.sgi.com, Pete Popov <ppopov@mvista.com>, George Gensure <werkt@csh.rit.edu>, linux-mips@oss.sgi.com
References: <Pine.GSO.3.96.1010523202819.5196G-100000@delta.ds2.pg.gda.pl>
Sender: owner-linux-mips@oss.sgi.com
"Maciej W. Rozycki" wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 23 May 2001, Jun Sun wrote:
> 
> > Same old questions : Where is the definition of sysmips()?  What is 
> > considered
> > standard implementation of sysmips() so that we can do reverse-engineering?
> > Irix?
> 
>  I think Ralf can comment it.
> 
> > Even if Irix is considered standard implementation of sysmips(), I wonder if
> > we need to mirror it.  Here is my reasoning.
> >
> > The sytem V ABI specifies _test_and_set() as the exntended system call.
> 
>  I think we want to execute IRIX binaries. 

That would make sense to keep sysmips() as it is if your statement is true. 
But I thought the binary comptability with IRIX has long been broken.  Can
someone confirm that?

If binary compatbility with IRIX is broken now, I don't think we should care
to fix it in the future - obviously. :-)

Jun

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>