Re: [uml-devel] SIGSEGV and SA_NODEFER

2005-01-21 Thread Blaisorblade
On Thursday 20 January 2005 01:07, you wrote: On Tuesday 18 January 2005 22:28, Jeff Dike wrote: It turns out that caker's crashes were being caused by the lack of SA_NODEFER in the SIGSEGV handler registration. As Jeff explained me on IRC, the previous patch sent about the same subject,

Re: [uml-devel] SIGSEGV and SA_NODEFER

2005-01-21 Thread Jeff Dike
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Are we sure it is a compensation? I started having the doubt that enabling the signal inside the handler is not the same thing... because otherwise we don't understand why the patch in 2.4 makes difference in TT mode. Well, it clearly does something very close to

Re: [uml-devel] SIGSEGV and SA_NODEFER

2005-01-21 Thread Rob Landley
On Friday 21 January 2005 07:35 am, Blaisorblade wrote: Ooh, ooh! Hang in TT mode is what I'm seeing with my makefile hang. (sh -x dosn't help if the makefile doesn't call out to stuff with it.) If the previous patch doesn't address it, is there a new patch I could try? Well, you

Re: [uml-devel] SIGSEGV and SA_NODEFER

2005-01-21 Thread Blaisorblade
On Friday 21 January 2005 19:18, Rob Landley wrote: On Friday 21 January 2005 07:35 am, Blaisorblade wrote: Ooh, ooh! Hang in TT mode is what I'm seeing with my makefile hang. (sh -x dosn't help if the makefile doesn't call out to stuff with it.) If the previous patch doesn't