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 T
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 hav
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, 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
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 linu
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: se
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...
>
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 breaks at least one version of the IBM JDK that I h
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. Per
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
>
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
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 c
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