From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19640 invoked by alias); 9 Feb 2010 15:43:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 19591 invoked by uid 48); 9 Feb 2010 15:43:15 -0000 Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 15:43:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20100209154315.19590.qmail@sourceware.org> From: "mjw at redhat dot com" To: systemtap@sources.redhat.com In-Reply-To: <20100209125924.11263.mjw@redhat.com> References: <20100209125924.11263.mjw@redhat.com> Reply-To: sourceware-bugzilla@sourceware.org Subject: [Bug tapsets/11263] exposing foo32 syscalls X-Bugzilla-Reason: AssignedTo Mailing-List: contact systemtap-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: systemtap-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2010-q1/txt/msg00365.txt.bz2 ------- Additional Comments From mjw at redhat dot com 2010-02-09 15:43 ------- The "problem" to me is that we don't do this splitting of 32on64 versus "pure 64" bit syscalls consistently. Why do we have syscall.pipe32 and syscall.mmap32, but not syscall.fstat32 for example? syscall.fstat is a nice example since we make it match any syscall variant that is called "fstat" whether it is the "plain" one or the compat/32on64 version. -- http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11263 ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.