From owner-freebsd-arch Mon Jan 7 17:47:21 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mailman.zeta.org.au (mailman.zeta.org.au [203.26.10.16]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3258D37B419 for ; Mon, 7 Jan 2002 17:47:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from bde.zeta.org.au (bde.zeta.org.au [203.2.228.102]) by mailman.zeta.org.au (8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA22106; Tue, 8 Jan 2002 12:47:12 +1100 Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2002 12:47:52 +1100 (EST) From: Bruce Evans X-X-Sender: To: Daniel Eischen Cc: Dan Eischen , Subject: Re: Request for review: getcontext, setcontext, etc In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020108124257.Y2997-100000@gamplex.bde.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Mon, 7 Jan 2002, Daniel Eischen wrote: > On Tue, 8 Jan 2002, Bruce Evans wrote: > > That makes sense. Is signal handling required to be "normal" in the > > POSIX threads library? If so, then the implementation can't use an > > alternate signal stack like this. > > I don't know if you would call it "normal", but POSIX does define > how signals should work in a threaded application. POSIX also > says that the use of sigaltstack in a threaded application is > undefined, so it seemed like it would be OK for the implementation > to use it. The system has a "normal" stack limit of 64MB, and I wonder how much the pthreads implementation can reasonbly disturb this. I guess POSIX can't say much about this since a general POSIX system might not even have a stack. Bruce To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message