[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Question about signal syscalls !

To: Ralf Baechle <>
Subject: Re: Question about signal syscalls !
From: Daniel Jacobowitz <>
Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 21:30:39 -0500
Cc: David Daney <>, Franck Bui-Huu <>, linux-mips <>
In-reply-to: <>
Original-recipient: rfc822;
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11)
On Mon, Feb 05, 2007 at 01:10:48AM +0000, Ralf Baechle wrote:
> Not saving the s-registers into the signal frame would be a neat
> optimization.  It wouldn't only make things a little faster it would
> also free space in the signal frame which is needed for CPU
> architecture extensions that have more state to save.  I had to burn
> almost the entire available space for the DSP extensions, so I wonder
> if we could get GDB to work?  The alternative is probably a new version
> of the sigrestore.

I'm sure that, if we tried, we could get GDB to work.  Every time this
comes up I just worry about other things that we don't know about which
use the saved information.  These structures are just in too many
places to change comfortably.

If you're worried about DSP extensions, you might want to take a look
at the work Nico and I did for ARM in the past year or so; it tags
extra register sets in the ucontext.  It was a pain to get together

Daniel Jacobowitz

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