Bill Studenmund wrote:
> I agree with the premise of this change. I'd ask though that you check and
> see what difference changing the native ECOFF behavior has. I also
> understand another developer has asked you the same in private
> correspondence. The main points are that according to Jason, some ports
> still use ecoff, and also that pmax and alpha started out using ecoff. So
> changing the native behavior would break backwards compatability, and thus
> be wrong.

Yeah, though I wonder if it's actually needed for native ECOFF
binaries? It has been suggested to me to ask on port-alpha for testers,
which I'd do (with a patch switching to regular 'setregs'
for native ECOFF).

> What functional difference does the change make?

None. It's matter of code organization, and proper layering. The proposed
way would also be less error prone, and one thing less to think of
when adding execution support for emulations. The fact that this
would help LKMs is by-product; if I'd aim for happy exec LKMs only,
I'd split the emul setregs to separate files and make every
exec LKM include appropriate setregs.
 
Jaromir
-- 
Jaromir Dolecek <jdolecek@NetBSD.org>      http://www.ics.muni.cz/~dolecek/
NetBSD - just plain best OS! -=*=- Got spare MCA cards or docs? Hand me them!