X-Recipient: archive-cygwin@delorie.com X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 23:54:57 -0400 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: fun? with libsigsegv Message-ID: <20090724035457.GA10802@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> Reply-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com References: <20090718042002.GA29467@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> <20090718094540.GA7707@calimero.vinschen.de> <4A61AF23.6020502@byu.net> <20090718152511.GC30721@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090718152511.GC30721@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@cygwin.com On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 11:25:11AM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote: >On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 05:16:51AM -0600, Eric Blake wrote: >>So I see several possibilities: >>[snip] > >My point, which I don't think you addressed in your long explanation, is >that there doesn't seem to be any "alternate stack" stuff going on in >the Windows code. Therefore, it seems like you could just rely on linux >signal handling to get the same level of behavior under Cygwin that you >currently get with the library. The problem is that, although configure >seems to be ok with a missing sigaltstack function, and some of the code >tries to work around its lack, there are still lots of places which >assume that if you're on UNIX you must have this function. > >libaltstack is doing something dangerous by assuming that it knows what libsigsegv >Cygwin is doing with SEH. I don't think that it should ever be used on >Cygwin in its current incarnation. -- 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