Bug#159411: Cannot reproduce
At Mon, 27 Jan 2003 11:25:25 -0500,
H. S. Teoh <hsteoh@quickfur.ath.cx> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 05:17:38PM +0100, Johan Walles wrote:
> > H. S. Teoh wrote:
> > >Could this be an architecture-specific problem? I'm on an i386 FYI.
> >
> > Yes, this is IA64 specific.
> [snip]
>
> Actually, I just checked on sparc: it shows a similar peculiarity,
> although not as pronounced:
>
> % grep -r SIGSTKSZ /usr/include
> /usr/include/bits/sigstack.h:#define MINSIGSTKSZ 2048
> /usr/include/bits/sigstack.h:#define SIGSTKSZ 8192
> /usr/include/asm-sparc64/signal.h:#define MINSIGSTKSZ 4096
> /usr/include/asm-sparc64/signal.h:#define SIGSTKSZ 16384
> /usr/include/asm-sparc/signal.h:#define MINSIGSTKSZ 4096
> /usr/include/asm-sparc/signal.h:#define SIGSTKSZ 16384
Please read Bdale Garbee and David Mosberger's mail. I attached it.
This is IA-64 stable glibc problem. Sid is already fixed.
I would like to know it's really important or not for stable glibc.
At Sat, 25 Jan 2003 18:22:38 +0900,
GOTO Masanori wrote:
> At Wed, 22 Jan 2003 08:40:27 -0800,
> David Mosberger wrote:
> > >>>>> On Wed, 22 Jan 2003 18:30:57 +0900, GOTO Masanori <gotom@debian.or.jp> said:
> >
> > Goto> At Wed, 22 Jan 2003 07:27:41 +0800,
> > Goto> Bdale Garbee wrote:
> > >>
> > >> I don't know anything about this header file offhand... Could someone
> > >> investigate and give us an answer, please?
> > >>
> > >> Bdale, at Linux Conf Australia this week
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> From: David Mosberger <davidm@napali.hpl.hp.com>
> > >> Subject: [ia64 R&D] bad {MIN}SIGSTKSZ on debian glibc-2.2.5-14.3
> > >>
> > >> It appears that Debian/stable ships with a stale header file:
> > >> /usr/include/bits/sigstack.h, contains:
> > >>
> > >> #define MINSIGSTKSZ 2048
> > >> #define SIGSTKSZ 8192
> > >>
> > >> These values are far too small and should be replaced with:
> > >>
> > >> #define MINSIGSTKSZ 131027
> > >> #define SIGSTKSZ 262144
> > >>
> > >> I think this headerfile has been corrected for "unstable" already, but
> > >> since this is effectively an ABI-change, it would be good to fix it in
> > >> "stable" too.
> > >>
> > >> Can do?
> >
> > Goto> It's already in glibc-2.3.1-10.
> >
> > Yes, of course. I said that much. The point is that people who use
> > "stable" for development work will continue to produce "bad" binaries.
> > That why I think it should be fixed for "stable" as well.
>
> Ah, I see. But... is it critical thing to replace "stable" package?
> Changing Debian "stable" release is something high barrier...
> I don't know current IA-64 really needs such change or not, so I
> would like to know this change is "indispensable".
>
> > Goto> /* Minimum stack size for a signal handler. */
> > Goto> #define MINSIGSTKSZ 131027
> >
> > Goto> /* System default stack size. */
> > Goto> #define SIGSTKSZ 262144
> >
> > Goto> However, I don't know why such big size is needed...
> >
> > I assume you realize that these are platform-specific header files?
> > On ia64 (which is what we're talking about here), the values need to
> > be relatively big because the architecture allows for up to ~16KB of
> > register-state. No current ia64 chip implements that many registers,
> > but with the stack size, you definitely want to err on the side of
> > safety and make it rather too big than too small.
>
> Ah, that makes sense for me. BTW, I would like to know that how many
> registers the current IA64 (Itanium/Itanium2) has?
-- gotom
Reply to: