Subject: Re: cpufunc.h
To: John Fremlin <>
From: Ben Harris <>
List: port-arm
Date: 05/28/2001 13:50:16
On 27 May 2001, John Fremlin wrote:

> Introduced are three new functions
>         __SetCPSR /* Force the CPSR to a certain value */
>         __set_stackptr /* set_stackptr without changing mode */
>         __get_stackptr /* get_stackptr without changing mode */
> the first of which is helpful.

Why the underscores at the start?  For the first, we presumably don't have
an existing SetCPSR, and for the others, wouldn't "set_current_stackptr"
be a better name (assuming that's what it does)?  Is there any point in
having functions that aren't helpful?

> Would this patch be accepted?

Probably.  I really need to overhaul cpufunc properly one day, but patches
to make it nicer are always helpful.

Ben Harris                                                   <>
Portmaster, NetBSD/arm26               <URL:>