[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: determining the stack bounds
From: |
Eric Blake |
Subject: |
Re: determining the stack bounds |
Date: |
Fri, 06 Jun 2008 06:46:49 -0600 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.14) Gecko/20080421 Thunderbird/2.0.0.14 Mnenhy/0.7.5.666 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
According to Eric Blake on 6/6/2008 6:25 AM:
| According to Bruno Haible on 6/6/2008 5:29 AM:
| | The type of the third argument, according to POSIX, is 'void *ucp'.
| Why does
| | it have to be cast? Why is it not directly 'ucontext_t *ucp' (since,
| as you
| | say, ucontext_t will be defined in <signal.h>)?
|
| I think POSIX is catering to the fact that older platforms (in particular
| BSD) typed it as 'struct sigcontext *sc' instead. More importantly,
| ucontext_t is an XSI extension; you can be POSIX compliant but not XSI
| compliant; in that case, you lack ucontext_t, and the third argument to a
| sigaction handler must be an unusable void* (which is pretty much what I
| discovered about OpenBSD 4.0).
I spoke too soon. In POSIX 2001, ucontext_t is XSI. But in 200x, it has
been promoted to CX (ie. mandatory for all POSIX implementations, but
still an extension to C99).
- --
Don't work too hard, make some time for fun as well!
Eric Blake address@hidden
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Cygwin)
Comment: Public key at home.comcast.net/~ericblake/eblake.gpg
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iEYEARECAAYFAkhJMbkACgkQ84KuGfSFAYD39wCfc9+JvLLtlVqdzIBdyqURsAXW
Df8AnApIhDIt1STR0HXMDthT0PixWR5G
=M0wd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
- c-stack vs. older platforms, Eric Blake, 2008/06/05
- Re: c-stack vs. older platforms, Paul Eggert, 2008/06/05
- Re: c-stack vs. older platforms, Bruno Haible, 2008/06/05
- Re: c-stack vs. older platforms, Eric Blake, 2008/06/05
- Re: c-stack vs. older platforms, Eric Blake, 2008/06/05
- Re: determining the stack bounds, Bruno Haible, 2008/06/05
- Re: determining the stack bounds, Eric Blake, 2008/06/05
- Re: determining the stack bounds, Bruno Haible, 2008/06/06
- Re: determining the stack bounds, Eric Blake, 2008/06/06
- Re: determining the stack bounds,
Eric Blake <=
- Re: determining the stack bounds, Eric Blake, 2008/06/06
- Re: determining the stack bounds, Bruno Haible, 2008/06/06
- Re: c-stack vs. older platforms, Eric Blake, 2008/06/06