On 2/7/06, Jeff Dike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Nope, that would be the next step if this turned out to be untenable, > which I guess it is.
You have to do it if you want to keep using the setjmp interface. > You're actually encrypting them somehow? How? And why? For security reasons. > Is there a reason there can't be an API for looking at the contents of > a jmp_buf? It's not needed. There is no reason to look at the content of the struct except if you do something which isn't guaranteed by the spec. I'll definitely not add such an interface. If you need this functionality, implement it yourself. setjmp is most likely overkill anyway. ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid3432&bid#0486&dat1642 _______________________________________________ User-mode-linux-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/user-mode-linux-devel
