[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Question about signal syscalls !

To: "Daniel Jacobowitz" <>
Subject: Re: Question about signal syscalls !
From: "Franck Bui-Huu" <>
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 10:17:24 +0100
Cc: "Ralf Baechle" <>, "David Daney" <>, 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=Ak7dU5kNPSpeOXrsesvrNkmvqbP9XZzUNuyciDldtNxOR257nTwE5cD3hzBKFOUA3sjDtQVfqi25q0/M6Fyc4klahot6D6RhF0Qg5UiFjNLF2YBxx5sUCIAaHNGIj9E2lQcY9yBcqwDUaQBQCuk3f+/NuvghtTImPcZYCBpK8sw=
In-reply-to: <>
Original-recipient: rfc822;
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
On 2/5/07, Daniel Jacobowitz <> wrote:
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.

It seems pretty dangerous if some tools use this saved hw context.
Because if the signal handler is handled during a return from a system
call (not from interrupt) then most information in the saved
information are random...

Well maybe we could just make a new version sig context functions
which does not save/restore static registers and make it an disabled
by default. That would let some people to play with and to see if it
break some user tools ?


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