[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2016 11:05:53 +0100
From: u-uy74@...ey.se
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: setcontext/getcontext/makecontext missing?
On Sat, Feb 06, 2016 at 09:20:49PM -0800, Justin Cormack wrote:
> > Thanks for pointing this out, if rt_sigprocmask can not be skipped
> > then indeed a switch becomes much more expensive.
>
> Many users of this interface do not actually require this. Actually NetBSD
> makes the context functions syscalls themselves. And OpenBSD does not
> provide them at all.
>
> I have taken to just including implementations (without the signal calls)
> in code that needs to use them
That's what Coda does.
This creates the burden to add the assembler code for new architectures
when necessary - or an option to resort to one of the heavier alternatives.
> with modifications to fix the prototype
> issues as most code only needs to pass a single argument. At one point I
> was going to do implementations for Musl but I think it is a bad idea.
I have to agree. Providing a non-compliant implementation in musl
would undermine its spirit (of standard-compliance).
OTOH a tiny standalone library with the adjusted API and without the
signal stuff *might* be actually a good fit for some applications,
especially for the old ones written to ucontext.
Rune
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.
