Message-ID: <4A6924E7.9030103@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 04:05:11 +0100
From: Dave Korn <dave.korn.cygwin@googlemail.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Windows/20080914)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Subject: Re: [1.7] Updated: libsigsegv-2.6-1
References: <4A678AC7.7090303@x-ray.at>  <4A6854F8.4060204@byu.net>  <20090723144038.GA11519@ednor.casa.cgf.cx>  <loom.20090723T145926-237@post.gmane.org>  <20090723171656.GA6973@ednor.casa.cgf.cx>  <4A690D27.3050109@gmail.com> <20090724020225.GB10306@ednor.casa.cgf.cx>
In-Reply-To: <20090724020225.GB10306@ednor.casa.cgf.cx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com

Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 02:23:51AM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
>> Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 04:35:12PM +0000, Eric Blake wrote:
>>>>> I really don't like the games this package plays.  I'm halfway tempted
>>>>> to just make it nonfunctional in Cygwin.
>>>> It works just fine, especially now that it only uses SEH for stack
>>>> overflow detection instead of assuming that all SEH faults imply
>>>> SIGSEGV.
>>> The point is that this is using an undocumented "interface" into
>>> Cygwin.  If we decide to change anything in SEH handler, which we do
>> >from time to time, this code is likely to break.  We are not likely to
>>> keep libsigsegv in mind if we make future changes to the exception
>>> handler.
>> Well, this line of argument also leads to the suggestion that we should
>> define a nice stable interface for it to use.  I haven't researched it
>> in depth but if, as it appears, this is a real library used by real
>> Linux apps to do a real job, and it is our goal to make those apps
>> "just recompile and work" on Cygwin as they do on Linux, then we should
>> give serious consideration to supporting libsigsegv and making what it
>> wants to do possible for it.
>>
>> cheers,
> 
> There isn't any actionable thing that I can respond to in the above
> other than to point out that it seems like seem like you weren't reading
> the discussion very carefully.

  Well, there isn't any actionable thing that I can respond to in the above
other than to point out that I actually /was/ reading the discussion
carefully, which is precisely *why* I made that suggestion.


  Perhaps we should both elucidate our statements?  It's so much easier than
playing guessing games.

    cheers,
      DaveK

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple