[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: gnumach ChangeLog i386/i386/locore.h i386/i386a... [gnumach-1-branch

From: Thomas Schwinge
Subject: Re: gnumach ChangeLog i386/i386/locore.h i386/i386a... [gnumach-1-branch]
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 12:44:42 +0200
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.11


On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 11:38:52PM +0000, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> CVSROOT:      /cvsroot/hurd
> Module name:  gnumach
> Branch:               gnumach-1-branch
> Changes by:   Samuel Thibault <sthibaul>      08/07/23 23:38:52
> Modified files:
>       .              : ChangeLog 
>       i386/i386      : locore.h 
>       i386/i386at    : com.c kd.c kd_mouse.c lpr.c 
>       i386/intel     : pmap.c pmap.h 
>       ipc            : ipc_kmsg.c mach_msg.c 
>       kern           : bootstrap.c exception.c ipc_tt.c 
> Log message:
>       2008-07-23  Barry deFreese  <bddebian@comcast.net>
>               * i386/i386/locore.h (copyinmsg, copyoutmsg): 
>               Make parameters const void* and void* instead of vm_offset_t.

     extern int copyin (const void *userbuf, void *kernelbuf, size_t cn);
    -extern int copyinmsg (vm_offset_t userbuf, vm_offset_t kernelbuf, size_t 
    +extern int copyinmsg (const void *userbuf, void *kernelbuf, size_t cn);

See `i386/i386/locore.S': `copyin' and `copyinmsg' (and same for the out
variants) already have the same entry points.  Now you also made them
equivalent at the C language level.  Perhaps just get rid of one of those
two symbols?  Or was there a real reason to have both functions with
different C language signatures point to the same implementation?


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]