[PATCH] doubt in _dl_exit
rep.dot.nop at gmail.com
Tue Jun 3 13:23:09 UTC 2008
On Tue, Jun 03, 2008 at 02:27:08PM +0200, Carmelo AMOROSO wrote:
> Bernhard Fischer wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 03, 2008 at 01:49:53PM +0200, Carmelo AMOROSO wrote:
>>> Bernhard Fischer wrote:
>>>> Could somebody who uses ldso please have a look if this breaks his
>>>> $ size ldso/ldso/ldso.oS*
>>>> text data bss dec hex filename
>>>> 12424 12 72 12508 30dc ldso/ldso/ldso.oS.old
>>>> 12290 12 72 12374 3056 ldso/ldso/ldso.oS
>>>> @@ -59,7 +59,11 @@
>>>> dynamic linking at all, so we cannot return any error codes.
>>>> We just punt if there is an error. */
>>>> #define __NR__dl_exit __NR_exit
>>>> -static __always_inline _syscall1(void, _dl_exit, int, status);
>>>> +static __always_inline attribute_noreturn void _dl_exit(int status)
>>>> + while (1)
>>>> + INLINE_SYSCALL(exit, 1, status);
>>> Hi Bernd,
>>> I've just now the chance to update my repo and figured out that this
>>> brakes sh4 build.
>>> My you explain the rationale for this change ?
>> I'm not opposed to reverting that hunk but that explicit variant was
>> better, imho.
> the problem is that it needs to update sh4/bits/syscall.h because it
> doesn't define INLINE_SYSCALL macro.
> I'll see to update this... so let's keep this.
ah, i should have looked if the other arches also do it by
INLINE_SYSCALL and not assume they do. I don't want to touch the other
arches right now, so i'll revert this hunk in the evening (in a couple
> At this point I support all other _syscall macro will be removed as well
> to use the explicit variant ?
I didn't intend to look at ldso, no.
A janitorial thing somebody could do is make sure all arches are synced
so we can remove that errnoeous trailing ';' from
More information about the uClibc