Date: Fri, 3 May 2002 03:48:38 -0700 From: Jonathan Mini <mini@freebsd.org> To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: syscall changes to deal with 32->64 changes. Message-ID: <20020503034838.K56560@stylus.haikugeek.com> In-Reply-To: <13810.1020419033@critter.freebsd.dk>; from phk@FreeBSD.ORG on Fri, May 03, 2002 at 11:43:53AM %2B0200 References: <13810.1020419033@critter.freebsd.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Poul-Henning Kamp [phk@FreeBSD.ORG] wrote : > 2. Is this a good occation to create a new syscall vector for > FreeBSD 5.0 rather than embellish the existing one with even > more variations ? I believe this is the cleanest solution. It makes sense to me that the entry point for a function would change when the symantics or parameters change. Also, folding more variations into the existing syscalls strikes me as a mess for binary compatability in the future. Especially since we're dealing with a large number of syscalls here (changing the size of time_t is going to hit a fair number, I would guess). If we use a new syscall vector for the 64bit syscalls, we give ourselves the opportunity to make a "clean break" away from the older ones. -- Jonathan Mini <mini@freebsd.org> http://www.haikugeek.com "He who is not aware of his ignorance will be only misled by his knowledge." -- Richard Whatley To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020503034838.K56560>