On Thu, Jan 15, 2004 at 07:14:45PM -0800, David Mosberger wrote: > >>>>> On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 19:35:19 -0800, Richard Harke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>>>> said: > > Richard> On Thursday 15 January 2004 05:06 pm, David Mosberger > Richard> wrote: > >> >>>>> On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 17:58:27 -0800, Richard Harke >>>>> > >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > Richard> Then if the user goes off the end of the stack, there is a > Richard> page fault and the system has the possiblity to extend the > Richard> stack. On the ia64, this hardly seems feasible. > >> Just initialize ar.bsp==sp. The stacks will then grow > >> "outwards". You'll need two guard areas, but that's the extent > >> of it. > > Richard> But then why was the current scheme chosen for linix-ia64? > > ia64 linux doesn't enforce a particular policy. You can do in > user-level whatever you like. The main thread of a new process gets > setup such that the stacks grow towards each other because it fits > well with RLIMIT_STACK and because it allows the available stack space > to be shared between register backing store and memory stack. It is > often the case that programs that are register backing store intensive > are less memory-stack intensive and vice versa.
So, what would the proper fix for the libpth problem on ia64 be? -- Jamin W. Collins This is the typical unix way of doing things: you string together lots of very specific tools to accomplish larger tasks. -- Vineet Kumar
