ik wrote:
I think that the entire design of the Do_SysCall is malformed in the
way it assumes the number of parameters and also the type of them, so
as I asked before, how I can either call the syscall command without
assembler, or how I can pass an array of const (prior to that I asked
regardin
On Saturday 16 February 2008 14:55:24 ik wrote:
> On Feb 16, 2008 10:03 PM, Florian Klaempfl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > ik schrieb:
> > > 1. There is a support only for up to 6 parameters (plus the instruction
> > > itself).
> >
> > Which syscall has more parameters?
>
> I don't know, but then
On 16 Feb 2008, at 21:55, ik wrote:
Exactly my point on the design in the first place. The corrent design
takes integers only. Regarding the Linux Kernel, I did not knew about
the floating points issues,
I don't know of a single OS kernel which supports using floating point
in kernel space.
On Feb 16, 2008 10:03 PM, Florian Klaempfl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ik schrieb:
> > 1. There is a support only for up to 6 parameters (plus the instruction
> > itself).
>
> Which syscall has more parameters?
I don't know, but then again, up until now I did not require to use
syscall on my own
ik schrieb:
> 1. There is a support only for up to 6 parameters (plus the instruction
> itself).
Which syscall has more parameters?
> 2. It support only integer base parameters, while you can not pass
> pointers, chars, array, record or floating point types.
Did you just calculate how much func
ik schreef:
OK, so why don't you just say that you do not understand ?!
You don't understand.
Let me start again. I never said that you, Micha, Daniel, Peter,
Florian, or even the big bad wolf should implement all of the given
syscall functions in the each platform in the world.
The design
OK, so why don't you just say that you do not understand ?!
Let me start again. I never said that you, Micha, Daniel, Peter,
Florian, or even the big bad wolf should implement all of the given
syscall functions in the each platform in the world.
The design of Do_SysCall at this time is hurting th
> On Feb 16, 2008 2:00 AM, Marco van de Voort <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > way it assumes the number of parameters and also the type of them, so
> > > as I asked before, how I can either call the syscall command without
> > > assembler, or how I can pass an array of const (prior to that I asked
On Feb 16, 2008 2:00 AM, Marco van de Voort <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Another issue (I should report it as a bug imho) is that Do_Syscall is
> > not really usable if you require to use different parameters then
> > integer value, for example: PChar.
>
> > I think that the entire design of the
> Another issue (I should report it as a bug imho) is that Do_Syscall is
> not really usable if you require to use different parameters then
> integer value, for example: PChar.
> I think that the entire design of the Do_SysCall is malformed in the
> way it assumes the number of parameters and als
Another issue (I should report it as a bug imho) is that Do_Syscall is
not really usable if you require to use different parameters then
integer value, for example: PChar.
A call for example that use PChar as one of it's parameter is
inotify_add_watch .
I think that the entire design of the Do_Sy
On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 8:36 PM, Micha Nelissen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ik wrote:
> > Actually the assembler is not that hard to understand :)
> > My point is, that I don't like the idea of 7 or 20 or 100 amount of
> > parameters to give answer to every need. I think we should find a
> > b
Vincent Snijders schrieb:
> Micha Nelissen schreef:
>> ik wrote:
>>> Actually the assembler is not that hard to understand :)
>>> My point is, that I don't like the idea of 7 or 20 or 100 amount of
>>> parameters to give answer to every need. I think we should find a
>>> better way to implement it,
> Micha Nelissen schreef:
> > ik wrote:
> >> Actually the assembler is not that hard to understand :)
> >> My point is, that I don't like the idea of 7 or 20 or 100 amount of
> >> parameters to give answer to every need. I think we should find a
> >> better way to implement it, like var args in C o
Micha Nelissen schreef:
ik wrote:
Actually the assembler is not that hard to understand :)
My point is, that I don't like the idea of 7 or 20 or 100 amount of
parameters to give answer to every need. I think we should find a
better way to implement it, like var args in C or open array in
pascal.
ik wrote:
> Actually the assembler is not that hard to understand :)
> My point is, that I don't like the idea of 7 or 20 or 100 amount of
> parameters to give answer to every need. I think we should find a
> better way to implement it, like var args in C or open array in
> pascal...
The linux ker
>> > I found that the Do_Syscalls are written in assembly and have only
>> > limited number of parameters (up to 6). Is there a way to write it
>> > using array of TSysParam instead of having 7 different functions ?
>>
>> Maybe but it wouldn't make the assembler easier to read :-).
>
> Actually
On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 11:02 PM, Micha Nelissen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ik wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I found that the Do_Syscalls are written in assembly and have only
> > limited number of parameters (up to 6). Is there a way to write it
> > using array of TSysParam instead of having 7 dif
> > Another question is, is there a way to use it witthout writing
> > assembly, like using it in libc or some other way ?
>
> Calling them doesn't require assembler, or what do you mean? You can try
> to extend the compiler to support inlining of assembly functions ;-).
Or custom calling conven
ik wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I found that the Do_Syscalls are written in assembly and have only
> limited number of parameters (up to 6). Is there a way to write it
> using array of TSysParam instead of having 7 different functions ?
Maybe but it wouldn't make the assembler easier to read :-).
> Another
On 10 Feb 2008, at 10:33, ik wrote:
I found that the Do_Syscalls are written in assembly and have only
limited number of parameters (up to 6). Is there a way to write it
using array of TSysParam instead of having 7 different functions ?
Another question is, is there a way to use it witthout wri
Hi,
I found that the Do_Syscalls are written in assembly and have only
limited number of parameters (up to 6). Is there a way to write it
using array of TSysParam instead of having 7 different functions ?
Another question is, is there a way to use it witthout writing
assembly, like using it in lib
22 matches
Mail list logo
