Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 16:26:33 +0000 (GMT) From: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> To: dfr@nlsystems.com (Doug Rabson) Cc: eischen@vigrid.com (Daniel Eischen), bde@zeta.org.au (Bruce Evans), arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Syscalls and execve Message-ID: <200006131626.JAA08218@usr05.primenet.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0006130826530.68954-100000@salmon.nlsystems.com> from "Doug Rabson" at Jun 13, 2000 08:29:51 AM
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > This isn't a big deal, we can just have a different set of routines > > to handle trapframes for the alpha, but if there is an opportunity > > to make trapframes and signal frames consistent (as they are on > > i386)... > > It would be difficult to make trapframe match sigcontext without changing > sigcontext to look more like the current trapframe (which is partly > dictated by PALcode). I don't think the associated cost of changing the > kernel ABI is worth the gain. Also, the fpregs state is totally unneeded > for trapframe since the kernel doesn't disturb the fp state during traps. What do NetBSD and OSF (DEC UNIX/TRUE64) do? I would think binary compatability with them was more important anyway... Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers. 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?200006131626.JAA08218>