[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2014 22:20:42 -0500
From: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Possible bug: MINSIGSTKSZ values
On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 09:18:12AM +0800, 黄建忠 wrote:
> Hi, Rich,
>
> If that means some opensource projects need to be modified to fit
> Musl, would you consider to add a "__MUSL__" macro?
>
> I think such a special macro will make upstream patch easy to be accepted.
I've never seen code that explicitly makes such a small thread stack;
it's not something you'd do without a specific need to, and probably
something you'd only do in an application where you control the
deployment and what libc etc. is in use rather than as source
distributed for use on different kinds of systems. Most code uses the
default thread-stack size or an explicit size based on its own stack
usage plus some margin of safety.
Also, as mentioned in my follow-up, the minimum thread stack size
really needs to include enough room for a signal frame since
cancellation is implemented with a signal handler and thus needs a
signal frame. So we probably need to bump up the minimum thread size
on some archs anyway. :(
Rich
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
