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.