This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [musl] SH sigcontext ABI is broken
- From: Rich Felker <dalias at libc dot org>
- To: Joseph Myers <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: Rob Landley <rob at landley dot net>, musl at lists dot openwall dot com, libc-alpha at sourceware dot org, linux-sh at vger dot kernel dot org
- Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 16:08:24 -0400
- Subject: Re: [musl] SH sigcontext ABI is broken
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20150619070912 dot GA15025 at brightrain dot aerifal dot cx> <20150620180644 dot GY1173 at brightrain dot aerifal dot cx> <558A3124 dot 30701 at landley dot net> <20150624045224 dot GO1173 at brightrain dot aerifal dot cx> <alpine dot DEB dot 2 dot 10 dot 1506241400040 dot 6710 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <20150624181235 dot GU1173 at brightrain dot aerifal dot cx> <alpine dot DEB dot 2 dot 10 dot 1506241934590 dot 30125 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk>
On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 07:37:45PM +0000, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Jun 2015, Rich Felker wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 02:10:06PM +0000, Joseph Myers wrote:
> > > On Wed, 24 Jun 2015, Rich Felker wrote:
> > >
> > > > Nominally SH3 support remains in both the kernel and glibc. If it can
> > > > be established that multiple parties agree that there's really no one
> > > > left who cares about the old no-FPU sigcontext ABI on SH3, I will be
> > > > all for dropping it and unifying sigcontext.
> > >
> > > Note that right now we have BE and LE versions of *three* ABIs for SH in
> > > glibc (SH3 soft-float, SH4 soft-float, SH4 hard-float) (and as noted in
> > > this discussion, right now each would only work properly on a kernel with
> > > the corresponding configuration). See
> > > <https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/ABIList>.
> >
> > Is your understanding that SH4 soft-float is using the SH4 ucontext_t
> > layout? I don't think it's even working at all. Glibc uses the layout
>
> My understanding is what Kaz affirmed in
> <https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2014-01/msg00388.html>. It's
> entirely possible there are bugs (including regressions) in this area; if
> so, they should be filed in Bugzilla.
OK, if that's the intent, I don't think it matches the present
reality. If I can confirm this I'll file a bug.
Rich