[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <8177954.fbJeCJImAo@laptop>
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2020 14:19:53 +0000
From: Mark Corbin <mark@...sco.co.uk>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Cc: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] move riscv64 register index constants to signal.h
On Tuesday, 4 February 2020 14:31:36 GMT Rich Felker wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 04, 2020 at 09:26:31AM -0500, Rich Felker wrote:
> > > > > I guess that it would probably be best to change the libsigsegv code
> > > > > to
> > > > > use a value of '2' instead of the REG_SP definition. I'll look at
> > > > > submitting a patch to the project.
> > > >
> > > > I think using a symbolic name is both more informative and more
> > > > portable (since the layout of the saved registers is an OS choice,
> > > > nothing universal to the architecture). The question is just where the
> > > > macro should be obtained from. As long as glibc (and any other
> > > > platforms that might be relevant?) has a sys/reg.h, it wouldn't hurt
> > > > to just add the include and continue using the macro, regardless of
> > > > whether musl moves it later.
> > >
> > > Glibc and uClibc don't have a sys/reg.h - is there a way that it could
> > > be
> > > included conditionally for musl only?
> >
> > If you want a configure test to detect it the yes; otherwise no. But
> > this suggests the way we did it is wrong. We should not be making this
> > kind of mess. I should probably just move the definitions...
>
> Patch attached. Any objections?
>
> Rich
Thanks Rich, that solves the problem.
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.
