| |||||||||||||
The x32 system call ABIThe x32 system call ABIPosted Sep 1, 2011 10:28 UTC (Thu) by nix (subscriber, #2304)Parent article: The x32 system call ABI
This also assumes that native x86-64 won't have 512 syscalls at any point in the future. This suggests that the rate of syscall addition will slow or stop. This seems... unlikely, unless everyone falls in love with giant multiplex syscalls again.
(Log in to post comments)
The x32 system call ABI Posted Sep 2, 2011 14:50 UTC (Fri) by BenHutchings (subscriber, #37955) [Link]
x32 syscall behaviour is supposed to be distinguished by a high bit set on %eax, not by the syscall table index. The choice to start numbering from 512 seems to be intended to avoid a collision with other additions made in parallel, not to provide a permanent distinction between native x86_64 and x32 syscalls.
The x32 system call ABI Posted Sep 3, 2011 19:45 UTC (Sat) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
Ah, right, perfectly normal procedure then, just with a much bigger gap than I'm used to :)
|
|||||||||||||