On Sat, 5 May 2001, Daniel Eischen wrote:
On Sat, 5 May 2001, Andrew Gallatin wrote:
Daniel Eischen writes:
OK, thanks. Here's my guess at what should be changed for the Linux
emulator. If this looks correct, I'll commit it.
Hmm, I wonder how linuxthreads works
On Mon, 7 May 2001, Bruce Evans wrote:
On Sat, 5 May 2001, Daniel Eischen wrote:
On Sat, 5 May 2001, Andrew Gallatin wrote:
Daniel Eischen writes:
OK, thanks. Here's my guess at what should be changed for the Linux
emulator. If this looks correct, I'll commit it.
In article
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Daniel
Eischen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think the only reason we used %fs instead of %gs was WINE. I
think Linux uses %gs for TSD, so if WINE were to ever depend on
linuxthreads, one of them would have to change.
At least on Red Hat 7.0 (glibc-2.1.92-14),
On Mon, 7 May 2001, John Polstra wrote:
In article
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Daniel
Eischen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think the only reason we used %fs instead of %gs was WINE. I
think Linux uses %gs for TSD, so if WINE were to ever depend on
linuxthreads, one of them would have to change.
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Daniel Eischen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was looking at our linuxthreads port and noticed some %gs
fiddling. If linuxthreads wants to allow POSIX semantics for
specifying thread stack allocation, they'll have to stop relying
on stack alignments for TSD.
On Sat, 5 May 2001, Andrew Gallatin wrote:
Daniel Eischen writes:
OK, thanks. Here's my guess at what should be changed for the Linux
emulator. If this looks correct, I'll commit it.
Hmm, I wonder how linuxthreads works under FreeBSD without this
change...
This
Daniel Eischen writes:
We're still OK with the change to FreeBSDs native signal trampoline
though, right? I'll hold off on the Linux emulator changes until
we can figure out what the problem is.
Yes, I was just commenting on the linulator patch you posted.
Drew
To Unsubscribe: send
On Wed, 2 May 2001, Daniel Eischen wrote:
On Wed, 2 May 2001, Bruce Evans wrote:
I am planning on using %fs for TSD/KSD and want it to be valid
in signal handlers.
Imagine doing the same thing with %ds, or better yet, %ss. %ss must
be set to the default for the kernel to even
On Fri, 4 May 2001, Bruce Evans wrote:
On Wed, 2 May 2001, Daniel Eischen wrote:
On Wed, 2 May 2001, Bruce Evans wrote:
There is also the osendsig() case, and corresponding code in several
emulators.
I don't think we care too much about osendsig() since anything
that uses a new
Daniel Eischen writes:
OK, thanks. Here's my guess at what should be changed for the Linux
emulator. If this looks correct, I'll commit it.
Hmm, I wonder how linuxthreads works under FreeBSD without this
change...
Well, they've never worked perfectly, by any means. Perhaps
On Wed, 2 May 2001, Bruce Evans wrote:
On Tue, 1 May 2001, Daniel Eischen wrote:
Why are %fs and %gs set back to default (_udata_sel) when posting
signals?
All segment registers are set to a default state so that signal handlers
have some chance of running when they interrupt code that
Why are %fs and %gs set back to default (_udata_sel) when posting
signals?
I am planning on using %fs for TSD/KSD and want it to be valid
in signal handlers.
A test program is at:
http://people.freebsd.org/~deischen/test_tsd.c
Compile it with -DDEBUG on an unpatched kernel to show more
On Tue, 1 May 2001, Daniel Eischen wrote:
Why are %fs and %gs set back to default (_udata_sel) when posting
signals?
All segment registers are set to a default state so that signal handlers
have some chance of running when they interrupt code that has changed
the segment registers to unusual
13 matches
Mail list logo
