On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 04:31:34PM -0500, Ryan Arnold wrote:
> Adhemerval and I were just looking at the signal stack frames and I'd
> noticed the increase in size due to the addition of the HTM bits so this is
> great timing.
>
> I tried a sigstack.h patch that increased the values as you indicat
Alan Modra wrote on 07/26/2013 12:05:28 AM:
> Alan Modra
> 07/26/2013 12:05 AM
>
> To
>
> Anton Blanchard ,
>
> cc
>
> Michael Neuling , Ryan Arnold/Rochester/
> IBM@IBMUS, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
>
> Subject
>
> Re: SIGSTKSZ/MINSIGSTKSZ too
On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 12:23:25PM +1000, Anton Blanchard wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Alan has been looking at a glibc test fail. His analysis shows SEGVs
> in signal handlers using sigaltstack, and that MINSIGSTKSZ and SIGSTKSZ
> are too small.
>
> We increased the size of rt_sigframe in commit 2b0a576d
Hi,
Alan has been looking at a glibc test fail. His analysis shows SEGVs
in signal handlers using sigaltstack, and that MINSIGSTKSZ and SIGSTKSZ
are too small.
We increased the size of rt_sigframe in commit 2b0a576d15e0
(powerpc: Add new transactional memory state to the signal context) but
didn
