On 04/10/10 06:28 -0700, Garrett Cooper wrote: > On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 6:04 AM, Carmelo AMOROSO <[email protected]> > wrote: -clip- > > > > Hannu, > > I don't think that it is a good to force the alignment; we could need to > > write a test case that calls LTP_clone with an unaligned stack just to > > test the behavior of the clone implementation. > > > > Likely, it should be useful to add a check inside the C lib clone > > implementation (arch specific) to protect against unaligned stack, but > > this is a different matter. > > > > I would just leave the LTP_clone passing the argument to the clone as > > they came from the caller. > > I believe this is already handled to some degree with the clone > testcases. If not that should be added and I'll review patches which > add this testing to LTP. > On a semi-unrelated note could you guys please test out the > attached patch to make sure that there isn't a functional difference > if you have access to ia64, s390, etc? > Thanks, > -Garrett
Hi, Garret, I did git pull and applied your patch, gcc whined about missing CHILD_STACK_SIZE... is it in your some other patch? IFor the time being I added CHILD_STACK_SIZE into test.h, but is it what you wanted initially? I can test clones for arm 32-bit (BeagleBoard/Cortex A8) and AMD64 (Debian 64-bit) environments. Sadly I do not have SPARCs, nor s390... br, Hannu ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Virtualization is moving to the mainstream and overtaking non-virtualized environment for deploying applications. Does it make network security easier or more difficult to achieve? Read this whitepaper to separate the two and get a better understanding. http://p.sf.net/sfu/hp-phase2-d2d _______________________________________________ Ltp-list mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list
