[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Question about signal syscalls !

To: "Daniel Jacobowitz" <>
Subject: Re: Question about signal syscalls !
From: "Franck Bui-Huu" <>
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 21:03:33 +0100
Cc: "David Daney" <>, "Ralf Baechle" <>, linux-mips <>
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=WT+HOnxfb/3orNcYsgu2OFpC/lXzsve5k/eqjW4rwlRIbUyoTA9/K0IOFjhjHM3rczD4M/yd4i/WPydebYlZpkpGQxriz8Gm2EdwIWvFH4tuSUkrl+ZkgtRSMpG5LhucPE6wONXKEyljugPYTmsSeOaEI9wLrKJ9zCzath1oha8=
In-reply-to: <>
Original-recipient: rfc822;
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
On 2/2/07, Daniel Jacobowitz <> wrote:
On Fri, Feb 02, 2007 at 05:36:30PM +0100, Franck Bui-Huu wrote:
> And now I'm starting to think that we don't need to save static regs in
> setup_sigcontext() either...

It's possible not to (iirc at least one arch does that) but please

can you tell which one ?

don't change it now.  This is a userland ABI issue; GDB knows that the

don't worry I don't want to change anything, I'm just trying to understand.

registers are saved, and there are slots for them in
sigcontext/ucontext so it would be unexpected if they were not filled
in.  Could break things like pth.

ok it's a good point to keep in mind.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>