On Aug 27, 2007, at 12:57 PM, matthew green wrote:

>
>> note that this sequence is only used by a few platforms, seems a
>> little over half check against the p_emul->e_nsysent.
>
>   Yes, some platforms made an effort a few years ago to shave some
>   cycles off
>
>
> ... at the expense of correctness.  seems wrong to me.

Using such an incorrect system call number is so incredibly unlikely,  
and also there are no standards that define what the behavior should  
be when using a system call number that is out of range (AFAIK), so it  
seems to be that it falls into the category of "undefined behavior"  
and so we get a pass.

-- thorpej