Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2022 13:06:14 -0400 From: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> To: WANG Xuerui <i.musl@...0n.name> Cc: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: A question about SA_RESTORER On Mon, Aug 01, 2022 at 07:30:39PM +0800, WANG Xuerui wrote: > On 2022/8/1 19:11, Dmitry Selyutin wrote: > >On Mon, Aug 1, 2022 at 12:27 PM 王洪亮 <wanghongliang@...ngson.cn> wrote: > >>LoongArch does not support SA_RESTORER,but must be define the macro > >>of SA_RESTORER in LoongArch,otherwise a build error will occur. > >>I want to ask if could consider the unsupported case about the > >>reference of SA_RESTORER in architecture independent code? > >Perhaps you could just `#define SA_RESTORER 0` in the corresponding > >bits/signal.h? > > > Actually, I don't know if any app is going to check whether > SA_RESTORER is defined and take different codepaths accordingly; if > any such app exists, it could be broken if SA_RESTORER is defined > but in fact not needed/supported by the kernel. Otherwise defining > it as 0 should be okay. Applications really should not be using SA_RESTORER at all. It does not do anything at the application level; libc ignores any restorer provided by the application. But if you really don't want to expose SA_RESTORER, I think the definition as 0 could be in the arch's ksigaction.h rather than the public signal.h bits. Does that work? 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.