Klaus Klein <kleink@ira.uka.de> writes:
> > I think you may have fallen in to a bit of a trap, Klaus. Not a big
> > one -- this was harmless -- but a bit of one anyway.
> > 
> > You see, syscalls.master is NOT where sbrk's signature is
> > defined. Have a close look. The sbrk() in syscalls.master is NEVER
> > used. I described this in one of my pr's on the subject.
> 
> I was aware of that prior to going over your PR, actually (though I
> could really have left the unimplemented syscall alone, since it's not
> even used in the automatic lint stub generation process).  Any
> comments/objections about tagging sys_sbrk() OBSOL and removing the
> in-kernel stub?  (If emulations should happen to depend on *not*
> posting a SIGSYS if called (as it is now), this should be addressed
> where required only.)

I was talking to Christos about this last night. I'll be posting a
long message about it today. We have three possible courses of action
-- I'll be mentioning what they are and recommending one...

Perry