From owner-freebsd-amd64@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jun 5 12:21:48 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3E7216A4CE; Sat, 5 Jun 2004 12:21:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.pcnet.com (mail.pcnet.com [204.213.232.4]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CDD943D1D; Sat, 5 Jun 2004 12:21:48 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from eischen@vigrid.com) Received: from mail.pcnet.com (mail.pcnet.com [204.213.232.4]) by mail.pcnet.com (8.12.10/8.12.1) with ESMTP id i55JLTtD002551; Sat, 5 Jun 2004 15:21:29 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2004 15:21:29 -0400 (EDT) From: Daniel Eischen X-Sender: eischen@pcnet5.pcnet.com To: Sean McNeil In-Reply-To: <1086458607.18813.37.camel@server.mcneil.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII cc: freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org cc: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org Subject: Re: All my amd64 problems appear to be KSE X-BeenThere: freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting FreeBSD to the AMD64 platform List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 05 Jun 2004 19:21:49 -0000 On Sat, 5 Jun 2004, Sean McNeil wrote: > On Sat, 2004-06-05 at 09:57, Daniel Eischen wrote: > > On Sat, 5 Jun 2004, Sean McNeil wrote: > > > > > With regards to gnome-specific or if KDE has the same issue, I cannot > > > answer. I do not use KDE. It would appear to be gnome-specific > > > (gtk-specific?). Emacs has never given me any problems, but neither has > > > > That includes glib also, right? > > right. > > > > nautilus, the panel, or a number of other gnome applications. > > > > > > For the moment, I highly suspect this is a pthread/readline interaction > > > causing the crashes. > > > > Why do you suspect that? > > I suspect libreadline because the only time I get a crash is when I type > in a character to an application or when it is starting up (resize?). > Sorry, it just occurred to me that this might be useful information. > > Looking at my bash problem, I can see there is an issue with any program > that might get a signal and then want to call an older installed handler > as > > sa_handler(sig) > > What happens is that sigaction is called and returns a context with the > _thr_sig_handler function. So the new signal handler is called and then > it in turn wants to call the old one. But the old handler isn't called > as a sigaction. > > I suppose it is really libreadline at fault here and it should check > SA_SIGINFO. Do you think there might be others that don't check either? I don't know; perhaps. > Why doesn't this show an issue in i386? Is it just luck that info has > been null and not caused a bad dereference? When I write signal handlers, I usually check info and ucp to make sure they are not null before using them. Actually, I rarely use them anyways so it doesn't matter if they are null or not. -- Dan Eischen