At Mon, 27 Jan 2003 12:11:12 -0500,
H. S. Teoh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 01:59:48AM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
> > At Mon, 27 Jan 2003 11:25:25 -0500,
> > H. S. Teoh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 05:17:38PM +0100, Johan Walles wrote:
> > > > H. S. Teoh wrote:
> > > > >Could this be an architecture-specific problem? I'm on an i386 FYI.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, this is IA64 specific.
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > > Actually, I just checked on sparc: it shows a similar peculiarity,
> > > although not as pronounced:
> > >
> > > % grep -r SIGSTKSZ /usr/include
> > > /usr/include/bits/sigstack.h:#define MINSIGSTKSZ 2048
> > > /usr/include/bits/sigstack.h:#define SIGSTKSZ 8192
> > > /usr/include/asm-sparc64/signal.h:#define MINSIGSTKSZ 4096
> > > /usr/include/asm-sparc64/signal.h:#define SIGSTKSZ 16384
> > > /usr/include/asm-sparc/signal.h:#define MINSIGSTKSZ 4096
> > > /usr/include/asm-sparc/signal.h:#define SIGSTKSZ 16384
> >
> > Please read Bdale Garbee and David Mosberger's mail. I attached it.
> > This is IA-64 stable glibc problem. Sid is already fixed.
>
> Ah, I see. Did you check sparc64 stable too? Is that fixed as well?
No, it still uses old value.
/* Minimum stack size for a signal handler. */
#define MINSIGSTKSZ 2048
/* System default stack size. */
#define SIGSTKSZ 8192
I also would like to know it should be needed to modify for stable
release.
> > I would like to know it's really important or not for stable glibc.
> [snip]
>
> Sorry, I don't know enough about these header files to decide.
Regards,
-- gotom
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
