On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 03:29:02PM +0000, Christos Zoulas wrote: > In article <f0ff615a-91e1-db16-46e1-92a675cf6...@gmx.com>, > Kamil Rytarowski <n...@gmx.com> wrote: > >On 08.06.2016 09:09, Martin Husemann wrote: > >> Maybe a minor nit: > >> > >> case _SC_THREAD_STACK_MIN: > >> - return _getpagesize(); > >> + return PTHREAD_STACK_MIN; > >> > >> > >> I would make that the max() of the two values, and also do the same for > >> the EINVAL test in libpthread. Machines with > 8k pages do exist. > >> > >> Also I am still not convinced we should have this symbol, as my reading > >> of the standard is that our current state is perfectly fine. > >> > >> However, MINSIGSTKSZ is wrong on those machines too, so maybe ignore for > >> now (or mark with XXX comments)? > >> > >> Martin > >> > > > >The point is to abstract this work to determine minimal stack size from > >3rd party software. > > > >Is defining it as per-port value correct? > > What should we do with that? Is this patch ok? > https://github.com/ycui1984/posixtestsuite/blob/master/patches/PTHREAD/0003-add-PTHREAD_STACK_MIN.patch
I still think this is plainly wrong. We should not define PTHREAD_STACK_MIN and the libc+libpthread code was correct before. Joerg
