From: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
x32-abi@googlegroups.com, "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com>,
GCC Development <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>,
GNU C Library <libc-alpha@sourceware.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: X32 psABI status
Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2011 23:39:26 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110213233926.1b3ca15a@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4D585F5F.6030708@zytor.com>
> a. the int $0x80 instruction is much slower than syscall. An actual
> i386 process can use the syscall instruction which is disambiguated
> by the CPU based on mode, but an x32 process is in the same CPU mode
> as a normal 64-bit process.
So set a flag, whoopee
> b. 64-bit arguments have to be split between two registers for the
> i386 entry points, requiring user-space stubs.
Diddums. Given you've yet to explain why everyone desperately needs this
extra interface why do we care ?
> All in all, the cost of an extra system call table is quite modest.
And the cost of not doing it is a gloriously wonderful zero. Yo've still
not explained the justification or what large number of apps are going to
use it.
It's a simple question - why do we care, why do we want the overhead and
the hassle, what do users get in return ?
Alan
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-02-13 23:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-02-12 19:41 H.J. Lu
2011-02-12 21:10 ` Florian Weimer
2011-02-12 21:29 ` H.J. Lu
2011-02-12 23:04 ` H. Peter Anvin
2011-02-13 3:02 ` Andrew Pinski
2011-02-13 8:48 ` Florian Weimer
2011-02-13 13:45 ` H.J. Lu
2011-02-13 15:07 ` Florian Weimer
2011-02-13 15:13 ` H.J. Lu
2011-02-13 15:21 ` Florian Weimer
2011-02-13 15:37 ` H.J. Lu
2011-02-13 16:35 ` Petr Baudis
2011-02-13 16:48 ` H.J. Lu
2011-02-13 17:37 ` Joseph S. Myers
2011-02-13 15:43 ` Maciej W. Rozycki
2011-02-13 15:57 ` H.J. Lu
2011-02-13 20:10 ` Arnd Bergmann
2011-02-13 21:10 ` H.J. Lu
2011-02-13 21:16 ` H. Peter Anvin
2011-02-13 21:28 ` H.J. Lu
2011-02-13 22:03 ` H. Peter Anvin
2011-02-13 22:12 ` H.J. Lu
2011-02-13 21:33 ` Alan Cox
2011-02-14 1:52 ` H. Peter Anvin
2011-02-13 22:27 ` H. Peter Anvin
2011-02-13 22:28 ` Arnd Bergmann
2011-02-13 22:46 ` H. Peter Anvin
2011-02-13 22:57 ` Arnd Bergmann
2011-02-13 23:03 ` H.J. Lu
2011-02-13 23:39 ` Alan Cox [this message]
2011-02-13 23:50 ` H.J. Lu
2011-02-14 1:59 ` H. Peter Anvin
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20110213233926.1b3ca15a@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
--to=alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=gcc@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=hjl.tools@gmail.com \
--cc=hpa@linux.intel.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=libc-alpha@sourceware.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=x32-abi@googlegroups.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®