Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2002 12:47:52 +1100 (EST) From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> To: Daniel Eischen <eischen@pcnet1.pcnet.com> Cc: Dan Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com>, <arch@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: Request for review: getcontext, setcontext, etc Message-ID: <20020108124257.Y2997-100000@gamplex.bde.org> In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1020107171944.7228A-100000@pcnet1.pcnet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020108124257.Y2997-100000>