INLINE_SYSCALL for m68k or sparc?

Rob Landley rob at
Tue Jan 12 05:24:36 UTC 2010

On Monday 11 January 2010 11:34:38 Lennart Sorensen wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 02:08:18PM -0600, Rob Landley wrote:
> > In the final stable release of uClibc, most architectures seem to have
> > INLINE_SYSCALL but I've bumped into those two not having it.  Is there a
> > reason for this?  Should I be using something else?
> Wasn't that done in the git tree a few months ago for m68k?  Maybe I am
> thinking of the INTERNAL_SYSCALL stuff instead.

In the git -devel branch I see an "INTERNAL_SYSCALL" but no "INLINE_SYSCALL".  
The final release of uClibc has neither.

> I guess it isn't the same thing.

Actually my main problem with looking at what's in git (if it's not a trivial 
backport) is that the final release of uClibc from the development branch was 
over a year ago, and there are no plans for another one that I am aware of.  

The last bugfix-only release was 10 months ago.  There were plans for another 
bugfix-only release three months ago, but it never materialized.  (Since the 
last uClibc bugfix-only release,, busybox has put out 1.13.3, 1.14.0, 
1.14.1, 1.14.2, 1.14.3, 1.15.0, 1.14.4, 1.15.1, 1.15.2, and 1.15.3.  Meanwhile 
the Linux kernel put out 4 development releases and 33 bugfix releases.  I note 
that the linux kernel "bugfix-only" team is 2 part-time guys.  My own Firmware 
Linux project (which is my hobby programming time plus an average of maybe 
another half-time person from other contributors) has put out four releases 
since then and (is working on a fifth).

When you say "in the git tree", do you mean the proposed stuff last 
discussed here in October (ok, one message about it in november), the -devel 
branch that's been ongoing with no roadmap for 14 months, or the -nptl branch 
that's been ongoing with no roadmap since at least 2006?

Latency is more important than throughput. It's that simple. - Linus Torvalds

More information about the uClibc mailing list