Re: [PATCH] linux-user: Correct definition of stack_t

2020-11-05 Thread Peter Maydell
On Thu, 5 Nov 2020 at 15:48, LemonBoy wrote: > On 05/11/20 16:16, Peter Maydell wrote: > > Coincidentally, I just noticed this yesterday (am in the middle of > > trying to debug why qemu-sparc64 crashes trying to start bash...) > > > > What an interesting coincidence, I also stumbled across this b

Re: [PATCH] linux-user: Correct definition of stack_t

2020-11-05 Thread LemonBoy
On 05/11/20 16:16, Peter Maydell wrote: > On Thu, 5 Nov 2020 at 14:55, LemonBoy wrote: >> >> From 914c30863b45d6fcd3e2fc83929bcac546be1555 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 >> From: LemonBoy >> Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2020 15:48:24 +0100 >> Subject: [PATCH] linux-user: Correct

Re: [PATCH] linux-user: Correct definition of stack_t

2020-11-05 Thread Peter Maydell
On Thu, 5 Nov 2020 at 14:55, LemonBoy wrote: > > From 914c30863b45d6fcd3e2fc83929bcac546be1555 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: LemonBoy > Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2020 15:48:24 +0100 > Subject: [PATCH] linux-user: Correct definition of stack_t > > Some platforms used the wrong

[PATCH] linux-user: Correct definition of stack_t

2020-11-05 Thread LemonBoy
>From 914c30863b45d6fcd3e2fc83929bcac546be1555 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: LemonBoy Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2020 15:48:24 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] linux-user: Correct definition of stack_t Some platforms used the wrong definition of stack_t where the flags and size fields were swapped or where