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

Bug#157374: Review fix for hppa - .dpatch provided - Tested / ABI breakage.



Okay, I've finally gotten around to testing on 32-bit
and 64-bit hppa boxes and rebuilt various items in chroot
to test the extent of the glibc ABI breakage.

It doesn't look bad. Nothing I've recompiled breaks.
I started with binutils/gcc/glibc from unstable and
the testsuites have the same number of failures.

The following .dpatch chagnes the definition of mcontext
such that it matches the kernel definition. Should this
need to change again in the future, we can maintain 
backwards compatibility by the addition of items to the 
tail-end of sigcontext.

At the moment this only works for a 32-bit kernel, because
the 64-bit kernel passes back 64-bit values to a 32-bit 
userspace (kernel patch pending).

Thanks for the wait, I needed to figure out how much
if any breakage would result from this change. Seems
there isn't that much use of mcontext without having
implemented set/get/make/swap/context() for hppa.

Cheers,
Carlos. 
#! /bin/sh -e

# DP: Makes mcontext_t a typedef to sigcontext on hppa.

if [ $# -ne 2 ]; then
    echo >&2 "`basename $0`: script expects -patch|-unpatch as argument"
    exit 1
fi
case "$1" in
    -patch) patch -d "$2" -f --no-backup-if-mismatch -p1 < $0;;
    -unpatch) patch -d "$2" -f --no-backup-if-mismatch -R -p1 < $0;;
    *)
	echo >&2 "`basename $0`: script expects -patch|-unpatch as argument"
	exit 1
esac
exit 0

# append the patch here and adjust the -p? flag in the patch calls.
--- glibc-2.2.5/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/hppa/sys/ucontext.h	2002-08-20 20:50:17.000000000 -0400
+++ glibc-2.2.5/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/hppa/sys/ucontext.h	2002-08-20 20:49:01.000000000 -0400
@@ -52,11 +52,7 @@
   } fpregset_t;
 
 /* Context to describe whole processor state.  */
-typedef struct
-  {
-    gregset_t gregs;
-    fpregset_t fpregs;
-  } mcontext_t;
+typedef struct sigcontext mcontext_t;
 
 /* Userlevel context.  */
 typedef struct ucontext


Reply to: