[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

sigsegv on s390 only giving start address of page in segv handler

Bruno Haible <bruno at clisp.org> writes:
> When you wrote to <bug-libsigsegv-antispam at antispam.gnu.org> you didn't remove
> the "antispam" words from the address.

Jep normally I copy&paste from the website and don't loko at the result
but expect it to just work

>> Now I'm wondering of software depending on libsigsegv won't work on s390
>> or maybe the correct page is still enough information for dependencies
>> like clisp to work -- in that case a "fix" would be rather easy.
> clisp (and probably other software too) will compile and work also when
> the installed <sigsegv.h> file does not define HAVE_SIGSEGV_RECOVERY or
> HAVE_STACK_OVERFLOW_RECOVERY. But the functionality will be a bit degraded.
> For clisp, it means that generational GC will not be compiled into clisp
> if HAVE_SIGSEGV_RECOVERY is not defined, and endless recursions may cause
> a crash if HAVE_STACK_OVERFLOW_RECOVERY is not defined.

OK that'll "work" untill we (maybe) get a better kernel. I guess it's
preferred to just accepting a inexact address? Considering how to best
build a fixed package. The 2 patches I'd consider attached. I'd prefer
the first one at the moment.



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: case1.patch
Type: text/x-diff
Size: 394 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-common-lisp-devel/attachments/20110311/4c52b0a6/attachment.patch>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: case2.patch
Type: text/x-diff
Size: 1305 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-common-lisp-devel/attachments/20110311/4c52b0a6/attachment-0001.patch>
-------------- next part --------------
9FED 5C6C E206 B70A 5857  70CA 9655 22B9 D49A E731
Debian Developer | Lisp Hacker | CaCert Assurer

A. Because it breaks the logical sequence of discussion
Q. Why is top posting bad?

Reply to: