Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 23:55:41 +1000 (EST) From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> To: Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com> Cc: Doug Rabson <dfr@nlsystems.com>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Syscalls and execve Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0006102349070.5817-100000@besplex.bde.org> In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1000610083735.5916A-100000@pcnet1.pcnet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 10 Jun 2000, Daniel Eischen wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Jun 2000, Doug Rabson wrote:
> > The trapframe which is created for syscall is identical to the trapframe
> > for exceptions and interrupts, its just not fully populated with register
> > values.
>
> On a related subject, the alpha sigcontext is different than the
> trapframe. This makes implementing {get,set}context slightly more
> difficult because they have to know which frame is in the machine
> context. For the new threads architecture (similar to scheduler
It's different on i386's too. It is certain to be different if the
floating point state is separate and too expensive to save in the
trap frame. The i386 also has complications for vm86 mode.
> activations), the context of threads that become unblocked in
> the kernel is passed out to the user threads library. I want to
> add {get,set}context as library routines and use them to handle
> both signal contexts and trapframes as passed out of the kernel.
I don't see how they can be implemented as pure library routines,
since they will have to get and set kernel state.
Bruce
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0006102349070.5817-100000>