Dave Jiang wrote:
Petr Vandrovec wrote:
#0 tb_sig_handler (sig=33, info=0x407ff2f0, ucontext=0x407ff1c0) at
ttest1.c:26
#1
#2 0x2ad81335 in nanosleep () from /lib/libc.so.6
#3 0x2ad811a5 in sleep () from /lib/libc.so.6
#4 0x00400871 in test_thread1 (arg=0x0) at tte
Petr Vandrovec wrote:
Replace call to sleep() with busy loop. Glibc's sleep() uses %ebp for
its own data, so when you interrupt sleep(), you get rbp=(unsigned
int)-1,
as rbp really contains 0x... when nanosleep() syscall
is issued.
Petr
From wha
Dave Jiang wrote:
Petr Vandrovec wrote:
Dave Jiang wrote:
Andi Kleen wrote:
Dave Jiang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Am I doing something wrong, or is this intended to be this way on
x86_64, or is something incorrect in the kernel? This method works
fine on i386. Thanks for any help!
Petr Vandrovec wrote:
Dave Jiang wrote:
Andi Kleen wrote:
Dave Jiang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Am I doing something wrong, or is this intended to be this way on
x86_64, or is something incorrect in the kernel? This method works
fine on i386. Thanks for any help!
I just tested your pr
Dave Jiang wrote:
Andi Kleen wrote:
Dave Jiang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Am I doing something wrong, or is this intended to be this way on
x86_64, or is something incorrect in the kernel? This method works
fine on i386. Thanks for any help!
I just tested your program on SLES9 with updat
Andi Kleen wrote:
Dave Jiang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Am I doing something wrong, or is this intended to be this way on
x86_64, or is something incorrect in the kernel? This method works
fine on i386. Thanks for any help!
I just tested your program on SLES9 with updated kernel and RBP
loo
Dave Jiang wrote:
Jan Engelhardt wrote:
Am I doing something wrong, or is this intended to be this way on
x86_64, or is something incorrect in the kernel? This method works
fine on i386. Thanks for any help!
I just tested your program on SLES9 with updated kernel and RBP
looks correct to me.
Jan Engelhardt wrote:
Am I doing something wrong, or is this intended to be this way on
x86_64, or is something incorrect in the kernel? This method works
fine on i386. Thanks for any help!
I just tested your program on SLES9 with updated kernel and RBP
looks correct to me. Probably something i
>> Am I doing something wrong, or is this intended to be this way on
>> x86_64, or is something incorrect in the kernel? This method works
>> fine on i386. Thanks for any help!
>
>I just tested your program on SLES9 with updated kernel and RBP
>looks correct to me. Probably something is wrong with
Dave Jiang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Am I doing something wrong, or is this intended to be this way on
> x86_64, or is something incorrect in the kernel? This method works
> fine on i386. Thanks for any help!
I just tested your program on SLES9 with updated kernel and RBP
looks correct to m
10 matches
Mail list logo
