[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Question about signal syscalls !

To: Daniel Jacobowitz <>
Subject: Re: Question about signal syscalls !
From: David Daney <>
Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2007 22:00:16 -0800
Cc: Ralf Baechle <>, Franck Bui-Huu <>, linux-mips <>
In-reply-to: <>
Original-recipient: rfc822;
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
User-agent: Thunderbird (X11/20061219)
Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
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 are keeping track, add MD_FALLBACK_FRAME_STATE in libgcc, which allows throwing C++ and java exceptions through signal handlers.

If gdb can be made to work, so can libgcc. The thing I worry about is I think people upgrade their kernel much more often than their toolchains. So you could be in a position of having to use a very new GCC. That might make some uncomfortable.

David Daney

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