Roland McGrath wrote:
I certainly have no objection in principle. I doubt that any x86 userland
apps expect certain si_code values for SIGTRAP now, since the existing
values are not of any real use. (Signal handlers get the thread.trap_no and
thread.error_code values from hardware to guess
I certainly have no objection in principle. I doubt that any x86 userland
apps expect certain si_code values for SIGTRAP now, since the existing
values are not of any real use. (Signal handlers get the thread.trap_no and
thread.error_code values from hardware to guess from, and debuggers via
On Monday 22 September 2008 20:24:04 Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Srinivasa Ds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- linux-2.6.27-rc7.orig/arch/ia64/include/asm/siginfo.h
+++ linux-2.6.27-rc7/arch/ia64/include/asm/siginfo.h
please do not send patches that modify include/asm/ files, the
include/asm-x86/
* Srinivasa Ds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Monday 22 September 2008 20:24:04 Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Srinivasa Ds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- linux-2.6.27-rc7.orig/arch/ia64/include/asm/siginfo.h
+++ linux-2.6.27-rc7/arch/ia64/include/asm/siginfo.h
please do not send patches that
* Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Currently a SIGTRAP can denote any one of below reasons.
- Breakpoint hit
- H/W debug register hit
- Single step
- Signal sent through kill() or rasie()
Architectures like powerpc/parisc provides infrastructure to
On Tuesday 23 September 2008 17:00:01 Ingo Molnar wrote:
applied to [the new topic] tip/core/signal, thanks Srinivasa! There
are some other pending x86 signal changes already, so i based
tip/core/signal on tip/x86/signal.
-tip testing found the following build error with the attached
* Srinivasa Ds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-tip testing found the following build error with the attached
config:
Ingo, Reproduced build break issue with your config on tip tree. It
was a costly overlook to miss one header file. I included it in this
patch and tested it out.
thanks -
On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 07:55:01PM +0530, Srinivasa Ds wrote:
On Tuesday 23 September 2008 17:00:01 Ingo Molnar wrote:
applied to [the new topic] tip/core/signal, thanks Srinivasa! There
are some other pending x86 signal changes already, so i based
tip/core/signal on tip/x86/signal.
Currently a SIGTRAP signal can denote any one of below reasons.
- Breakpoint hit
- H/W debug register hit
- Single step
- SIGTRAP signal sent through kill() or rasie()
Architectures like powerpc/parisc provides infrastructure to demultiplex
SIGTRAP signal by
* Srinivasa Ds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Currently a SIGTRAP signal can denote any one of below reasons.
- Breakpoint hit
- H/W debug register hit
- Single step
- SIGTRAP signal sent through kill() or rasie()
Architectures like powerpc/parisc provides
On Monday 22 September 2008 16:12:02 Ingo Molnar wrote:
no fundamental objections - assuming existing x86 apps have not grown an
ABI dependency on the existing send_sigtrap() semantics. (Debuggers and
JITs would be a candidate for such dependencies.)
Assuming that no ABI dependency exist
* Srinivasa Ds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- linux-2.6.27-rc7.orig/arch/ia64/include/asm/siginfo.h
+++ linux-2.6.27-rc7/arch/ia64/include/asm/siginfo.h
please do not send patches that modify include/asm/ files, the
include/asm-x86/ file should be modified instead.
(this problem will go away
12 matches
Mail list logo
