[Patch 2/4] ARM 64 bit sync atomic operations [V2]

[David Gilbert]

On 3 October 2011 09:35, Andrew Haley <aph@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 09/30/2011 08:54 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
>> 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.
>
> That would be better, no?  Unless __write is part of the glibc API,
> which AFAIK it isn't.

I could change it to calling the syscall directly - although it gets
a little messy having to deal with both ARM and Thumb syscalls;
I was trying to avoid further complicating an already complicated corner
case.

Dave