On Wed, Sep 04, 2002 at 10:32:42AM -0700, Jun Sun wrote:
> > The primary problem is the differnet calling sequence for o32 and N64.
> > As it looks we'll be able to use either the o32 function or the native
> > syscall to implement all of the necessary N32 syscalls.
> For 64bit kernel, do we intend to have one syscall table that support o32,
> n32 and n64 altogether? Or we will have multiple tables for them?
Several approach to solve that problem. Adding another 1000 entries - which
will cost 8000 bytes of memory that will be mostly zeros. Having wrappers
for each function that do the appropriate argument and result convertion
is another. etc.
> > The question is if we want to reserve another 1000 entries in our already
> > huge syscall table for N32 or if we got a better solution ...
> It seems n32 can be naturally implemented through n64 syscalls, although I am
> sure there are some nasty details to work out.
Unfortunately there are ...
> Where can I find n32/n64 spec?
mipsabi.org which is no longer online. Anyway, I don't think there is a
formal published N32 spec. And this whole thread is about the syscall
interface. That isn't part of any ABI spec.