This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [Patch 2/4] ARM 64 bit sync atomic operations [V2]
- From: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Ramana Radhakrishnan <ramana dot radhakrishnan at linaro dot org>
- Cc: "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <david dot gilbert at linaro dot org>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, rth at redhat dot com, patches at linaro dot org
- Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2011 19:54:29 +0000 (UTC)
- Subject: Re: [Patch 2/4] ARM 64 bit sync atomic operations [V2]
- References: <20110701155254.GA5242@davesworkthinkpad> <CACUk7=XU8JS+NmcCeKMWQX=WfUeJ4Yn3J+sSk_jOEjOk10EcVg@mail.gmail.com> <20110726085910.GA6925@davesworkthinkpad> <20110726090039.GB6925@davesworkthinkpad> <20110726090115.GC6925@davesworkthinkpad> <CACUk7=VDwc8aQvA1dT22BFFGaMy=is4CEOYWq1R_-YYxO=vnTg@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, 30 Sep 2011, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
> On 26 July 2011 10:01, Dr. David Alan Gilbert <david.gilbert@linaro.org> wrote:
> >
> > +
> > +extern unsigned int __write(int fd, const void *buf, unsigned int count);
>
> Why are we using __write instead of write?
Because plain write is in the user's namespace in ISO C. See what I said
in <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-07/msg00084.html> - the
alternative is hardcoding the syscall number and using the syscall
directly.
--
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com