[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> __restore(): 764
> do_execve:340
> load_elf_binary: 324
> segv: 180
> sigio_handler:176
> load_script: 172
> ext2_get_block: 160
> set_signals: 156
> block_read_full_page: 124
There's nothing re
On Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 11:21:01AM -0500, Jeff Dike wrote:
> Also, could you look at the stack pointer at each frame, to see if you are
> encountering any stack hogs in the generic kernel? In a different situation,
> I found devfs putting a 3K structure on the stack.
OK, top candidates on that
On Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 11:21:01AM -0500, Jeff Dike wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> > Even with this patch, the overflow is 808 bytes (without the patch
> > it's 1232 bytes).
>
> I was mulling over some other changes that would have saved another 256 bytes,
> but those don't look like they wo
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> Even with this patch, the overflow is 808 bytes (without the patch
> it's 1232 bytes).
I was mulling over some other changes that would have saved another 256 bytes,
but those don't look like they would help. Try the patch below. It
essentially gives up and lets the
On Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 12:35:48AM -0500, Jeff Dike wrote:
> I've been waiting for someone to send me that stack. There aren't any real
> smoking guns there. I'm guessing that the difference between your laptop and
> the machine it works on is that your laptop is running a fairly recent kernel
Thank you!
I've been waiting for someone to send me that stack. There aren't any real
smoking guns there. I'm guessing that the difference between your laptop and
the machine it works on is that your laptop is running a fairly recent kernel
(2.4.0-testx) and the other isn't. The sigcontext
6 matches
Mail list logo
