[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150624200824.GV1173@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 16:08:24 -0400
From: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>
To: Joseph Myers <joseph@...esourcery.com>
Cc: Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net>, musl@...ts.openwall.com,
libc-alpha@...rceware.org, linux-sh@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: SH sigcontext ABI is broken
On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 07:37:45PM +0000, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Jun 2015, Rich Felker wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 02:10:06PM +0000, Joseph Myers wrote:
> > > On Wed, 24 Jun 2015, Rich Felker wrote:
> > >
> > > > Nominally SH3 support remains in both the kernel and glibc. If it can
> > > > be established that multiple parties agree that there's really no one
> > > > left who cares about the old no-FPU sigcontext ABI on SH3, I will be
> > > > all for dropping it and unifying sigcontext.
> > >
> > > Note that right now we have BE and LE versions of *three* ABIs for SH in
> > > glibc (SH3 soft-float, SH4 soft-float, SH4 hard-float) (and as noted in
> > > this discussion, right now each would only work properly on a kernel with
> > > the corresponding configuration). See
> > > <https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/ABIList>.
> >
> > Is your understanding that SH4 soft-float is using the SH4 ucontext_t
> > layout? I don't think it's even working at all. Glibc uses the layout
>
> My understanding is what Kaz affirmed in
> <https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2014-01/msg00388.html>. It's
> entirely possible there are bugs (including regressions) in this area; if
> so, they should be filed in Bugzilla.
OK, if that's the intent, I don't think it matches the present
reality. If I can confirm this I'll file a bug.
Rich
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
