On 6 September 2013 16:12, Richard Henderson <r...@twiddle.net> wrote: > On 09/05/2013 09:53 PM, Stefan Weil wrote: >> After lots of SIGSEGV, the program indeed finishes successfully, >> so my report was wrong - SIGSEGV is not a fatal signal for sparc64. >> That's interesting - thank you for this information. > > It's not just sparc64. > > That's changed page detection, for determining when to invalidate > translation blocks. For self-modifying code, and more.
Yeah, but in practice sparc64 does this a huge number of times on simple binaries in a way that other linux-user guests I looked at just don't. Presumably it's just that gcc has for some reason put writable data next to code for that target. -- PMM
