On 03/16/2010 07:23 PM, Stuart Brady wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 02:10:43AM +, Stuart Brady wrote:
>> Argh. It just seems mind bogglingly silly that is_write doesn't seem to
>> be included in the siginfo on archs where doing so would make sense...
>
>> It's at least something I'd have ho
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 02:10:43AM +, Stuart Brady wrote:
> Argh. It just seems mind bogglingly silly that is_write doesn't seem to
> be included in the siginfo on archs where doing so would make sense...
> It's at least something I'd have hoped libc could take care of in the case
> where the
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 03:58:08PM +0100, Richard Henderson wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Richard Henderson
Acked-by: Stuart Brady
Argh. It just seems mind bogglingly silly that is_write doesn't seem to
be included in the siginfo on archs where doing so would make sense...
It's at least something I
Signed-off-by: Richard Henderson
---
cpu-exec.c | 38 +++---
1 files changed, 31 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/cpu-exec.c b/cpu-exec.c
index bcfcda2..14204f4 100644
--- a/cpu-exec.c
+++ b/cpu-exec.c
@@ -1193,15 +1193,39 @@ int cpu_signal_handler(int
---
cpu-exec.c | 38 +++---
1 files changed, 31 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/cpu-exec.c b/cpu-exec.c
index bcfcda2..14204f4 100644
--- a/cpu-exec.c
+++ b/cpu-exec.c
@@ -1193,15 +1193,39 @@ int cpu_signal_handler(int host_signum, void *pinfo,
{
