Roland McGrath wrote:
I certainly have no objection in principle. I doubt that any x86 userland
apps expect certain si_code values for SIGTRAP now, since the existing
values are not of any real use. (Signal handlers get the thread.trap_no and
thread.error_code values from hardware to guess from
I certainly have no objection in principle. I doubt that any x86 userland
apps expect certain si_code values for SIGTRAP now, since the existing
values are not of any real use. (Signal handlers get the thread.trap_no and
thread.error_code values from hardware to guess from, and debuggers via
ptra
On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 07:55:01PM +0530, Srinivasa Ds wrote:
> On Tuesday 23 September 2008 17:00:01 Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> > > applied to [the new topic] tip/core/signal, thanks Srinivasa! There
> > > are some other pending x86 signal changes already, so i based
> > > tip/core/signal on tip/x86/
* Srinivasa Ds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > -tip testing found the following build error with the attached
> > config:
>
> Ingo, Reproduced build break issue with your config on tip tree. It
> was a costly overlook to miss one header file. I included it in this
> patch and tested it out.
t
On Tuesday 23 September 2008 17:00:01 Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > applied to [the new topic] tip/core/signal, thanks Srinivasa! There
> > are some other pending x86 signal changes already, so i based
> > tip/core/signal on tip/x86/signal.
>
> -tip testing found the following build error with the attach
