Date: Thu, 3 Dec 1998 02:25:44 -0500 (EST) From: "Matthew N. Dodd" <winter@jurai.net> To: John Birrell <jb@cimlogic.com.au> Cc: bright@hotjobs.com, cnielsen@pobox.com, paipai@tin.it, freebsd-sparc@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Libutils on Sparc64/Sparc32 Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.02.9812030222130.17054-100000@sasami.jurai.net> In-Reply-To: <199812030655.RAA12594@cimlogic.com.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 3 Dec 1998, John Birrell wrote: > Yes, if the syscalls changed after the alpha code was snapshotted. The > problem with keeping NETBSD_SYSCALLS around is that NetBSD provides > backward compatibility for their stuff by fudging the defines in the > headers. When we compile the NETBSD_SYSCALLS into FreeBSD's libc, we > can only handle one translation and that has to match the particular > kernel you've chosen. I'm using a 1.3.x syscall.h * created from NetBSD: syscalls.master,v 1.63.2.1 1997/11/04 21:27:05 thorpej Exp netbsd_syscall.h * created from NetBSD: syscalls.master,v 1.67 1998/01/04 03:45:21 thorpej Exp I see no significant differences. > > I'm fairly sure I'm seeing a problem with my fabbed up include/machine/* > > which was more or less copied direct from NetBSD/sparc and banged into > > compiling stuff. (first pass shotgun debugging if you will.) > > OK, I'll take your word for it. 8-) Heh, I'm only trying to take the blame I deserve. -- | Matthew N. Dodd | 78 280Z | 75 164E | 84 245DL | FreeBSD/NetBSD/Sprite/VMS | | winter@jurai.net | This Space For Rent | ix86,sparc,m68k,pmax,vax | | http://www.jurai.net/~winter | Are you k-rad elite enough for my webpage? | To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-sparc" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.02.9812030222130.17054-100000>