> On Wed, 09 Jul 2008 23:28:55 +0200, Roland McGrath wrote: > > I have some more fixes in the x86 bowels about ready to send upstream. > > >From the status quo upstream, my changes get FAIL->PASS for > > step-jump-cont-strict (32 & 64), step-through-sigret (32). > > Even step-jump-cont-strict, great.
Yes, 0+0 failures (4+6 skipped) in 'make check' as stock in cvs today. It's been a while since I actually looked at that test case. I think it was cured by a patch I have labelled "block-step fix" that fixes some of the "who set TF" bookkeeping. There are still a number of arcane scenarios involving user-sets-own-TF where we know that we don't notice everything perfectly, and I don't think I reduced that number from its past minimum. Thanks, Roland
