From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/13200 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Rich Felker Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm asm for vfork Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2018 11:19:14 -0400 Message-ID: <20180906151914.GH1878@brightrain.aerifal.cx> References: <20180430013622.28792-1-patrick.oppenlander@gmail.com> <20180430013622.28792-2-patrick.oppenlander@gmail.com> <20180430020944.GF1392@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20180718023526.GO1392@brightrain.aerifal.cx> Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1536247046 20246 195.159.176.226 (6 Sep 2018 15:17:26 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2018 15:17:26 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-13216-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Thu Sep 06 17:17:22 2018 Return-path: Envelope-to: gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mother.openwall.net ([195.42.179.200]) by blaine.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1fxw24-00056w-F0 for gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org; Thu, 06 Sep 2018 17:17:20 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 7307 invoked by uid 550); 6 Sep 2018 15:19:27 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-ID: Original-Received: (qmail 7284 invoked from network); 6 Sep 2018 15:19:27 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Original-Sender: Rich Felker Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:13200 Archived-At: On Thu, Sep 06, 2018 at 05:02:14PM +0200, Patrick Oppenlander wrote: > On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 6:14 AM Patrick Oppenlander > wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 12:35 PM Rich Felker wrote: > > > I think there needs to be a ".hidden __syscall_ret" (by de facto musl > > > convention, on the line before it's used) here. It *might* be ok > > > having the reference omit .hidden as long as the definition is hidden > > > at link-time (which it is), but I'm not convinced the tooling won't > > > complain about a branch to a destination that's not known to be > > > link-time constant displacement. > > > > If that's the case i386, s390x, x86_64 and x32 may need attention in > > vfork.s as they're doing it the same way. > > > > > If you have no other changes or comments I'm happy to just --amend > > > that into the patch when I commit it. > > > > No problem with that at all. > > > > I guess this one slipped through the cracks for 1.20. > > Any chance of you taking a look soon? Indeed! Sorry about that. I'm in the middle of a big shuffle of messy stuff in the source tree right now, but ping me again soon if you don't see action on it in the next couple days. Rich