Salut Marc,
On Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 06:46:52PM +0200, Marc Espie wrote:
> The routines to detect stack overflow throuh segv are basically
> broken. The idea may be fine, but it ends up calling a sigv handler
> that uses gettext, printf, stdout... all of which are definitely NOT
> sig-safe. Pity, because the hardcode routine is basically very careful
> to use write(2), to avoid this.
>
> I haven't checked that translation magic is signal-safe.
> - I doubt it;
> - stdio is not signal-safe in any kind of portable setting anyways.
Bummer. I haven't really looked at this code, but I agree with what
you are saying. I've added a copy of your email to the M4 TODO file
so that we don;t forget to look into this problem.
Cheers,
Gary.
--
())_. Gary V. Vaughan gary@(oranda.demon.co.uk|gnu.org)
( '/ Research Scientist http://www.oranda.demon.co.uk ,_())____
/ )= GNU Hacker http://www.gnu.org/software/libtool \' `&
`(_~)_ Tech' Author http://sources.redhat.com/autobook =`---d__/
_______________________________________________
Bug-m4 mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-m4
