[klibc] Register parameters are unsafe with gcc 3.3.2

[Olaf Hering]

 On Sun, Jun 06, H. Peter Anvin wrote:

> 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?

Its indeed much larger:


    dirent.o          634
      show.o     810  918
  mystring.o    1232  1372
      mail.o    1988  
    syntax.o    2125  1839
      init.o    2992  2664
      echo.o    3004  
  builtins.o    3416  2916
 miscbltin.o    3816  3752
      kill.o    3900  
     nodes.o    3904  3760
     alias.o    4216  
  memalloc.o    4828  4632
     redir.o    5180  4704
     error.o    5572  3652
      trap.o    6388  4344
      main.o    6528  6124
     arith.o    6532  
    output.o    6584  6188
      test.o    7044  
     input.o    7096  5688
        cd.o    7988  7240
   options.o    8764  6304
       var.o   11520  8700
    printf.o   11684  
 arith_lex.o   12464  
      exec.o   13028  11060
      eval.o   19336  15976
    expand.o   23572  14952
      jobs.o   23932  12480
    parser.o   25784  20836
          sh  119640  71624


I will look at it, but not before July.
And the question is, what should klibc sh do for us? Just a dumb /init helper, or more?
mail, kill and alias is not really needed, but test and possible printf is.

-- 
USB is for mice, FireWire is for men!

sUse lINUX ag, nÜRNBERG