Hi Vineet
On 11/03/13 14:31, Vineet Gupta wrote:
On Monday 11 March 2013 07:50 PM, James Hogan wrote:
Note that the vfork man page has a few relevant comments, such as this:
CONFORMING TO
4.3BSD, POSIX.1-2001. POSIX.1-2008 removes the specification of
vfork(). The requirements put
Hi James,
On Tuesday 12 March 2013 03:03 PM, James Hogan wrote:
Hi Vineet
On 11/03/13 14:31, Vineet Gupta wrote:
On Monday 11 March 2013 07:50 PM, James Hogan wrote:
Note that the vfork man page has a few relevant comments, such as this:
CONFORMING TO
4.3BSD, POSIX.1-2001.
Hi Vineet,
On 12/03/13 10:10, Vineet Gupta wrote:
On Tuesday 12 March 2013 03:03 PM, James Hogan wrote:
On 11/03/13 14:31, Vineet Gupta wrote:
The point here is that we should not be changing semantics of vfork wrapper
for
legacy-syscall-abi vs. the legacy-abi one. If new vfork.c is wrong -
Signed-off-by: Vineet Gupta vgu...@synopsys.com
Cc: Markos Chandras markos.chand...@imgtec.com
---
libc/sysdeps/linux/common/vfork.c |3 ++-
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/libc/sysdeps/linux/common/vfork.c
b/libc/sysdeps/linux/common/vfork.c
index
On 11 March 2013 13:21, Vineet Gupta vineet.gup...@synopsys.com wrote:
Signed-off-by: Vineet Gupta vgu...@synopsys.com
Cc: Markos Chandras markos.chand...@imgtec.com
---
libc/sysdeps/linux/common/vfork.c |3 ++-
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git
Hi Rich,
On Monday 11 March 2013 07:01 PM, Markos Chandras wrote:
On 11 March 2013 13:21, Vineet Gupta vineet.gup...@synopsys.com wrote:
Signed-off-by: Vineet Gupta vgu...@synopsys.com
Cc: Markos Chandras markos.chand...@imgtec.com
---
libc/sysdeps/linux/common/vfork.c |3 ++-
1 files
Hi Vineet,
On 11/03/13 14:02, Vineet Gupta wrote:
IMHO, the reasoning in those discussions is flawed. I agree that any C
implementation of vfork is dubious - because there is no gaurantee that stack
won't be clobbered when the vfork wrapper returns (unless arch has a
Branch-n-link
reg and
Hi James,
On Monday 11 March 2013 07:50 PM, James Hogan wrote:
Hi Vineet,
On 11/03/13 14:02, Vineet Gupta wrote:
IMHO, the reasoning in those discussions is flawed. I agree that any C
implementation of vfork is dubious - because there is no gaurantee that stack
won't be clobbered when the
