This is the mail archive of the libc-hacker@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the glibc project.

Note that libc-hacker is a closed list. You may look at the archives of this list, but subscription and posting are not open.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: [PATCH] Change INTERNAL_SYSCALL* so that it supports both archeswhich have error embedded in retval and arches which signal error otherwise

From: Ulrich Drepper <drepper at redhat dot com>
To: Roland McGrath <roland at redhat dot com>
Cc: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>, Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>, Glibc hackers <libc-hacker at sources dot redhat dot com>
Date: Sun, 05 Jan 2003 17:39:46 -0800
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Change INTERNAL_SYSCALL* so that it supports both archeswhich have error embedded in retval and arches which signal error otherwise
Organization: Red Hat, Inc.
References: <200301060119.h061JfP04363@magilla.sf.frob.com>

Roland McGrath wrote:

> I guess this is ok, but a little bulky.  If it's always `int err' and
> nonzero to indicate, on x86 that's something like "err = retval < 0 ?
> -retval : 0;".  Does the compiler really fail to eliminate all that work if
> `err' is dead?

I don't think it's "bulky" and I definitely don't want to take the
chance that gcc misses to optimize some variable out.

-- 
--------------.                        ,-.            444 Castro Street
Ulrich Drepper \    ,-----------------'   \ Mountain View, CA 94041 USA
Red Hat         `--' drepper at redhat.com `---------------------------

References:
- Re: [PATCH] Change INTERNAL_SYSCALL* so that it supports both arches which have error embedded in retval and arches which signal error otherwise
  - From: Roland McGrath

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]