Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 16:00:39 +0100 From: Ed Schouten <ed@80386.nl> To: FreeBSD Arch <freebsd-arch@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: pipe(2) calling convention: why? Message-ID: <20081111150039.GV1165@hoeg.nl> In-Reply-To: <20081109192746.GO1165@hoeg.nl> References: <20081109192746.GO1165@hoeg.nl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--alTGMKZKEXf64S3V Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello all, It seems most people liked some things that were in the patch, while others preferred to keep things as they were. I've just committed a patch to SVN (r184849) which keeps pipe(2) as it is now, but does some cleanups: - I've added kern_pipe(), so we can make linux_pipe() and linux32_pipe() less ugly (discussed with rdivacky). - I've also changed the manual page to not mention EFAULT, because we just get a segmentation fault if we pass an invalid address. Thanks all for commenting on this topic! --=20 Ed Schouten <ed@80386.nl> WWW: http://80386.nl/ --alTGMKZKEXf64S3V Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAkkZnhcACgkQ52SDGA2eCwVFswCbBdyuv5lcBtWUsrQOJC7FtIex c6IAnRmI8hAf03kkpoEPf2dAYGnT1VC7 =CjU+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --alTGMKZKEXf64S3V--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20081111150039.GV1165>