Re: Question about signal syscalls !

[David Daney <ddaney@avtrex.com>]

Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 05, 2007 at 01:10:48AM +0000, Ralf Baechle wrote:
>   
>> Not saving the s-registers into the signal frame would be a neat
>> optimization.  It wouldn't only make things a little faster it would
>> also free space in the signal frame which is needed for CPU
>> architecture extensions that have more state to save.  I had to burn
>> almost the entire available space for the DSP extensions, so I wonder
>> if we could get GDB to work?  The alternative is probably a new version
>> of the sigrestore.
>>     
>
> I'm sure that, if we tried, we could get GDB to work.  Every time this
> comes up I just worry about other things that we don't know about which
> use the saved information.  These structures are just in too many
> places to change comfortably.
>   
If you are keeping track, add MD_FALLBACK_FRAME_STATE in libgcc, which 
allows throwing C++ and java exceptions through signal handlers.

If gdb can be made to work, so can libgcc.  The thing I worry about is I 
think people upgrade their kernel much more often than their 
toolchains.  So you could be in a position of having to use a very new 
GCC.  That might make some uncomfortable.

David Daney