these were overlooked in the declarations overhaul work because they
are not properly declared, and the current framework even allows their
declared types to vary by arch. at some point this should be cleaned
up, but I'm not sure what the right way would be.

these files are all accepted as legacy arm syntax when producing arm
code, but legacy syntax cannot be used for producing thumb2 with
access to the full ISA. even after switching to UAL, some asm source
files contain instructions which are not valid in thumb mode, so these
will need to be addressed separately.

the conventional way to implement sigsetjmp is to save the signal mask
then tail-call to setjmp; siglongjmp then restores the signal mask and
calls longjmp. the problem with this approach is that a signal already
pending, or arriving between unmasking of signals and restoration of
the saved stack pointer, will have its signal handler run on the stack
that was active before siglongjmp was called. this can lead to
unbounded stack usage when siglongjmp is used to leave a signal
handler.

in the new design, sigsetjmp saves its own return address inside the
extended part of the sigjmp_buf (outside the __jmp_buf part used by
setjmp) then calls setjmp to save a jmp_buf inside its own execution.
it then tail-calls to __sigsetjmp_tail, which uses the return value of
setjmp to determine whether to save the current signal mask or restore
a previously-saved mask.

as an added bonus, this design makes it so that siglongjmp and longjmp
are identical. this is useful because the __longjmp_chk function we
need to add for ABI-compatibility assumes siglongjmp and longjmp are
the same, but for different reasons -- it was designed assuming either
can access a flag just past the __jmp_buf indicating whether the
signal masked was saved, and act on that flag. however, early versions
of musl did not have space past the __jmp_buf for the non-sigjmp_buf
version of jmp_buf, so our setjmp cannot store such a flag without
risking clobbering memory on (very) old binaries.

no idea why gcc refuses to compile the C code to use a tail call, but
it's best to use asm anyway so we don't have to rely on the quality of
the compiler's optimizations for correct code.

this port assumes eabi calling conventions, eabi linux syscall
convention, and presence of the kernel helpers at 0xffff0f?0 needed
for threads support. otherwise it makes very few assumptions, and the
code should work even on armv4 without thumb support, as well as on
systems with thumb interworking. the bits headers declare this a
little endian system, but as far as i can tell the code should work
equally well on big endian.

some small details are probably broken; so far, testing has been
limited to qemu/aboriginal linux.