From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <3F5E4749.6080105@acm.org> Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2003 16:34:01 -0500 From: Corey Minyard MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org, Paul Mackerras Subject: Re: Change to allow signal handlers to set SE and BE bits. References: <3F4FB0F3.9090906@acm.org> <20030829131824.B18608@home.com> <3F574958.4090402@acm.org> <3F58AA89.80803@acm.org> <3F5E27D2.3090808@acm.org> <1063136371.642.44.camel@gaston> In-Reply-To: <1063136371.642.44.camel@gaston> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Sender: owner-linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: What if you went back to using the original syscall numbers? Those seem to have code in gdb to support them. -Corey Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: >On Tue, 2003-09-09 at 21:19, Corey Minyard wrote: > > >>Paul came up with a much better method for this. I have added a syscall >>that does a "debug" return from the signal handler. It's much cleaner. >> >>I ahve a patch for this, and I've done a number of things besides just >>this. I seemed bad to me to add yet another kludge to the beginning of >>DoSyscall for handling yet another signal return value. So I turned all >>the signal return syscalls into normal syscalls. This should speed up >>normal syscall handling by removing four instructions from the syscall >>entry. Is this ok? >> >> > >The problem with changing the signal return is that you break at least >gdb, and maybe more (g++ stack unwinding ?) > >Ben. > > > > ** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/