Linux-insides: System calls in the Linux kernel, Part 2

Re:Linux-insides: System calls in the Linux kernel, Part 2 by Someone on Monday August 31, 2015 @01:01PM (#10147768)

Less buggy in the sense of "bugs make it into a release" or less prone to regressions that get discovered soon? I would the former, but would be interested in an example of the latter.

Also, I would guess that also runs the risk of making it less portable across compilers (you need non-standard compiler features to implement this in C). Is that a concern?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Linux-insides: System calls in the Linux kernel, Part 2 by amluto on Tuesday September 01, 2015 @09:08PM (#10156881)

> Also, I would guess that also runs the risk of making it less portable across compilers (you need non-standard compiler features to implement this in C). Is that a concern?

Actually, no. My code implements just enough in asm that the C part is a normal function using the normal C ABI.

There are some microoptimizations that would be possible if I were to rely on __builtin_frame_address, but GCC has some highly questionable optimizations (or arguably outright bugs) that make me quite nervous about using it.

[ Parent | on HN ]