[klibc] Register parameters are unsafe with gcc 3.3.2

[H. Peter Anvin]

Olaf Hering wrote:
>  On Sun, Jun 06, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> 
>>I'm a little confused... there were two patches, one which seemed to 
>>have another patch embedded, should I apply one, both or... ?
> 
> The small one shows only the differences between netbsd and what klibc
> needs to compile.
> 

Okay, I applied your patch, but the resulting sh binary is 60% larger 
than the old one - 90K instead of 55K (on i386.)  I think this is 
sufficient enough of a delta that I think we need to ask the people here 
-- is this worth it, or is this bloat?

	-hpa