From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt To: Corey Minyard Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org, Paul Mackerras In-Reply-To: <3F5E27D2.3090808@acm.org> References: <3F4FB0F3.9090906@acm.org> <20030829131824.B18608@home.com> <3F574958.4090402@acm.org> <3F58AA89.80803@acm.org> <3F5E27D2.3090808@acm.org> Message-Id: <1063136371.642.44.camel@gaston> Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2003 21:39:31 +0200 Subject: Re: Change to allow signal handlers to set SE and BE bits. Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: 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/