From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org (eggs.gnu.org [IPv6:2001:470:142:3::10]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7F0AA3858D1E for ; Sun, 12 Feb 2023 15:46:31 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 7F0AA3858D1E Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gnu.org Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gnu.org Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pREYd-000553-Ro; Sun, 12 Feb 2023 10:46:31 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:References:Subject:To:From: Date; bh=m3YsmsuwalOokAmDC6KLURQ34TfOMy8ljUQb2tNEZvY=; b=aEuvYWxb6VEKiYPj0fJm crgSp9v3UrHULoVe1kfyu71XeHMabj6J739hrEWqaCALhSgtUxBNAyoSS9HzD7BihUNdqM7yVJAyd EC0eY0HKIbsagxSocMZhr+81etg4BUFxBUFPG4s64Dbd8vpwgQv93bvGvmYTysrTUx/IocRsetMLL Gi3DzRaLeeS/yYImWlw5JsOconU4bIeK/26BtLJHCpnG98PS0JVZYzvIJsu6oHpsBjS3D1XU3K5P0 w9VML71qA/iBxJseOJb7AfS84R/KXb46Zn9RCXq3dsTzaXD4zEid/ocbhLqLIVf3BvFFLaZgN5+JJ rUozHiNeylgzMw==; Received: from lfbn-bor-1-1163-184.w92-158.abo.wanadoo.fr ([92.158.138.184] helo=begin) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pREYd-0006MV-G0; Sun, 12 Feb 2023 10:46:27 -0500 Received: from samy by begin with local (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1pREYZ-004qwl-2x; Sun, 12 Feb 2023 16:46:23 +0100 Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2023 16:46:23 +0100 From: Samuel Thibault To: Sergey Bugaev Cc: bug-hurd@gnu.org, libc-alpha@sourceware.org, =?utf-8?Q?Fl=C3=A1vio?= Cruz Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH glibc 9/12] mach: Look for mach_i386.defs on x86_64 too Message-ID: <20230212154623.3f7qppulbp33fth7@begin> Mail-Followup-To: Sergey Bugaev , bug-hurd@gnu.org, libc-alpha@sourceware.org, =?utf-8?Q?Fl=C3=A1vio?= Cruz References: <20230212111044.610942-1-bugaevc@gmail.com> <20230212111044.610942-10-bugaevc@gmail.com> <20230212150710.zuzw5nqdtwvflkrj@begin> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: Organization: I am not organized User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170609 (1.8.3) X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: Sergey Bugaev, le dim. 12 févr. 2023 18:38:03 +0300, a ecrit: > Since mach/machine/syscall_sw.h is the i386 version on x86_64 (or -- > is it not supposed to be?) Nobody yet decided that the system call interface would be the same on i386 and on x86_64 :) Most probably we'll need a different header, to put the trap number of rax instead of eax, notably. And the systemcall instruction will most probably not be an lcall. > the _MACH_I386_SYSCALL_SW_H_ guard is the one to fake, hence setting > mach-machine to i386. This can be already fixed by shipping a different file in mach, as we'll most probably want in the end anyway. Samuel