From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2014 10:51:08 -0400
To: 9fans@9fans.net
Message-ID: <2fdb93b6d3c34a14358e954bb0277136@brasstown.quanstro.net>
In-Reply-To: <1cf098df32e72373820588ccf693aa2e@felloff.net>
References: <1cf098df32e72373820588ccf693aa2e@felloff.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [9fans] 9syscall
Topicbox-Message-UUID: fab4e174-ead8-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On Thu Jun 12 10:31:30 EDT 2014, cinap_lenrek@felloff.net wrote:
> the difference is, returning pointers the natural way works on all archs.
> returning vlong works differently depending on the arch. so
> the "portable" syscall handlers use a convention that works the
> same on all archs, assuming returned vlong is passed by reference.

is that portable or is that a 32-bit assumption?

- erik