Re: [RFC 2.0] Implementing hwcap2

[Mike Frysinger <vapier at gentoo dot org>]

On Tuesday 09 April 2013 07:24:07 Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 2013-04-08 17:05, Roland McGrath wrote:
> > The calling convention for IFUNC resolvers is machine-specific.
> > Thus, it's up to each machine maintainer to decide what it should be
> > for his machine.  Given how rare IFUNC use still is, I'd say it's
> > also up to each machine maintainer to decide whether or not an
> > incompatible change to the convention is acceptable at this stage.
> 
> While I suppose that's a valid position, my position is that merely
> adding a second 32-bit argument to the ifunc resolver maintains
> compatability across all machines, and that is good for everyone.

this assumes the IFUNC calling convention matches normal C function calling 
convention.  i'm not saying it doesn't, just the way Roland (perhaps 
inadvertently phrased it) leaves the door open in case it is not.  i don't 
really see a reason why it wouldn't be ... but being explicit can't hurt :).

and yes, i agree with your position (i mentioned the same earlier in the 
thread)
-mike

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.