Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 16:53:59 +0200 (CEST) From: marcov@stack.nl (Marco van de Voort) To: freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ABI question, porting ports to amd64 Message-ID: <20040517145359.6CE759A@toad.stack.nl> In-Reply-To: <200405161607.20644.peter@wemm.org> "from Peter Wemm at May 16, 2004 04:07:20 pm"
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
> > > Or, we'd declare the syscall prototypes with an explicit override
> > > of the register parameter assignments or something. (bad luck
> > > though if you neglect to use the right #includes for your code and
> > > miss out a prototype)
> >
> > I was always curious why the (basic) *nix syscalls weren't inlined?
> > Can't gcc do that?
>
> The errno handling is the sticky point. Error return is indicated by
> the 'carry' bit set in the flags register. At which point the return
> value of the syscall is copied to the 'errno' variable and the function
> returns -1.
Hmm, but the x86-64 can surely branch further than the size of procedure?
int bla()
{
...
...
syscall
jb .bla_cerror
..
..
}
.bla_cerror: jmp .cerror
?
home |
help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040517145359.6CE759A>