> On Wed, Mar 01, 2000 at 03:06:37PM -0800, Kanoj Sarcar wrote:
> > Umm, didn't I just check this in a couple of days back?
> Not unless you are better at hacking than the NSA because this code has
> never reached a machine connected to the net :-)
No no, I meant a version of sys32_execve, not the exact code that
Actually, if you look at the checked in version of sys32_execve, it is
quite different from the sparc version (_much_ less code).
Seeing that there are probably more people working on the ia32
compatibility issues for ia64, I have decided I am going to look
at how they have converted a system call first, then look at the
sparc implementation, and decide which one I want to pick.
While we are at it, maybe its time we came up with rules for
determining which system calls need to be 32bitized. Other things
like TASK_SIZE also probably need to be 32bitized (similar to
> The similarity is natural, I just sent this for your interest because of
> yesterday's phone discussion about the egcs bug and workaround.