Matt Thomas wrote:
> >I don't understand. Note that the syscall array is rounded up to
> >nearest power of two, so there are guaranteed to be 512 entries
> >at the moment. The code there should work just fine in the form it
> >was in rev 1.8. What was the exact problem you tried to fix?
> >Note that MACH_SYS_MAXSYSCALL == MACH_SYS_NSYSENT == 128.
> 
> SYS_MAXSYSCALL (346) != SYS_NSYSENT (512).

Indeed, you are right. The code worked before, because it explicitly
used SYS_NSYSENT (and it works for this reason elsewhere, too).

The struct emul definitions are wrong then, they should use
*SYS_NSYSENT, not *SYS_MAXSYSCALL. I will fix the struct emul
definitions. Would it be okay to back off your change then?

Jaromir 
-- 
Jaromir Dolecek <jdolecek@NetBSD.org>            http://www.NetBSD.org/
-=- We should be mindful of the potential goal, but as the tantric    -=-
-=- Buddhist masters say, ``You may notice during meditation that you -=-
-=- sometimes levitate or glow.   Do not let this distract you.''     -=-