> On Wed, Jun 28, 2023 at 09:22:21PM +0800, Zhangjin Wu wrote: > > my_syscall<N> share a same long clobber list, define a macro for them. > > > > Signed-off-by: Zhangjin Wu <falcon@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > tools/include/nolibc/arch-loongarch.h | 25 +++++++++++-------------- > > 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/tools/include/nolibc/arch-loongarch.h b/tools/include/nolibc/arch-loongarch.h > > index 292d6a58dc87..fbb4844f7993 100644 > > --- a/tools/include/nolibc/arch-loongarch.h > > +++ b/tools/include/nolibc/arch-loongarch.h > > @@ -23,6 +23,10 @@ > > */ > > #define __ARCH_WANT_SYS_PSELECT6 > > > > +#define SYSCALL_CLOBBERLIST \ > > + "memory", "$t0", "$t1", "$t2", "$t3", \ > > + "$t4", "$t5", "$t6", "$t7", "$t8" > > + > > That's a good idea, but please be careful when adding macro definitions, > we're in code that is used by user space we have no control on, and we're > polluting the end user's macro namespace with plenty of names. While one > could argue that it's unlikely that some program already defines and uses > SYSCALL_CLOBBERLIST, actually with low-level code it's fairly possible. > > Till now most of the definitions were for stuff that user-space really > needs (e.g. STDIN_FILENO, various integer limits). If we start to declare > random macros for internal use, at least we should probably prefix them > with _NOLIBC_ or something like this to avoid the risk of collision. > Ok, _NOLIBC_ prefix will be applied, Thanks. Best regards, Zhangjin > Willy
