[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: c-stack vs. older platforms
From: |
Eric Blake |
Subject: |
Re: c-stack vs. older platforms |
Date: |
Fri, 6 Jun 2008 04:22:02 +0000 (UTC) |
User-agent: |
Loom/3.14 (http://gmane.org/) |
Eric Blake <ebb9 <at> byu.net> writes:
> > - sigaltstack is present and works on
> > Linux, FreeBSD, NetBSD, AIX, HP-UX 11.11, IRIX, OSF/1, Solaris, and
> > (more or less) MacOS X.
> > It is not available on
> > OpenBSD, HP-UX 11.23, Cygwin, mingw, BeOS.
>
> Actually, sigaltstack is in OpenBSD 4.0.
It turns out that on OpenBSD 4.0, sigaltstack exists, but ucontext_t is only a
typedef for the older struct sigcontext, and is the lacking the required uc_*
members, so c-stack.m4 fails to compile. But it is still possible to get the
faulting address and then use mincore to see if it falls near the stack.
--
Eric Blake
- Re: c-stack vs. older platforms, (continued)
- 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, 2008/06/06
- 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 <=