[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 |
Hello!
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
cn);
+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?
Regards,
Thomas
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
- Re: gnumach ChangeLog i386/i386/locore.h i386/i386a... [gnumach-1-branch],
Thomas Schwinge <=