From owner-freebsd-current Mon Nov 15 16:13: 4 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from blaubaer.kn-bremen.de (blaubaer.kn-bremen.de [195.37.179.254]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81959151CC for ; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 16:13:00 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from nox@saturn.kn-bremen.de) Received: from saturn.kn-bremen.de (uucp@localhost) by blaubaer.kn-bremen.de (8.9.1/8.9.1) with UUCP id BAA25288; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 01:11:20 +0100 Received: (from nox@localhost) by saturn.kn-bremen.de (8.9.3/8.8.5) id AAA08986; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 00:52:01 +0100 (MET) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 00:52:01 +0100 (MET) From: Juergen Lock Message-Id: <199911152352.AAA08986@saturn.kn-bremen.de> To: luoqi@watermarkgroup.com Subject: Re: Wine under -current. patches.. comments? X-Newsgroups: local.list.freebsd.current In-Reply-To: <199911150745.CAA27884@lor.watermarkgroup.com> Organization: home Cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG In article <199911150745.CAA27884@lor.watermarkgroup.com> you write: >> The latest port of wine references PR 14652 >> for patches to make -current work. >> some of these ptches are however in areas I don't understand. >> In particular signals, register contexts, etc. > >This refers to validity of segment registers fs/gs in sigcontext. >Under -stable both of them are unused and signal handlers have to >read the registers directly. Under -current fs was valid and gs >still unused until I changed it recently, now they are both valid. >This was done a couple weeks before 3.3-RELEASE, so I didn't have >time to change -stable as well. I planned to do it immediately >afterwards, but Marcel's 128-signal change came in, and I decided >to wait for -current to stablize first. I guess it's time for me to >make the changes. A word of warning, after the changes wine should >be source compatible between -stable and -current, binary compiled >on -stable should still work on -current, This is good news... > but not vice versa. And thats to be expected of course. > >There's another patch regarding SIGTRAP in the PR. I recall there >were some discussions about it, but I don't know what's the final >resolution (if there was one). Maybe Marcel and Bruce know better. > The last mail i received on the subject if i remember right was Bruce's with the suggestion to use the state of the trace bit on entry to syscall() (not on exit as my first version did), which i then tested and which worked, and this is the version now in the port (files/patch-3.3-sys-sigtrap). Regards, -- Juergen Lock (remove dot foo from address to reply) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message