This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sourceware.org mailing list for the glibc project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
On Tuesday 09 April 2013 10:47:58 Steven Munroe wrote: > On Tue, 2013-04-09 at 06:24 -0500, 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. > > I agree. there exist several cases where we pass more parameters (main() > and the auxv for example) then most programs use or care about. It is a > simple solution that works for every one and does not harm to any > application that only uses the initial parameter set. ELF constructors too. most people write it as (void), but the C lib passes things into it. -mike
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |