Quoting Jeff Johnston <jjohnstn@redhat.com>:
Can you explain why you didn't move sbrk.c from libc/sys/epiphany into
libgloss with the rest of the syscalls which is recommended?
I was focusing on I/O (I realized there were two isatty definitions and
it was non-obbvious which one was used).
sbrk is more tied to linker scripts. Still, I suppose it makes sense to
have it in libgloss, too. I'll have to check that that won't cause any
issues for the customer, though.
Other
than that, the changes look fine.
Does that mean the port submission is approved if I move sbrk to libgloss?
Or were you talking only about the incremental changes of the Epiphany port
as such?