I'll try to investigate, but currently I am all confused, and I
suspect we have some user-space issues. If only I knew something about ppc...
Sorry for the confusing.
Ananth, could you please confirm once again that step-jump-cont (from
ptrace-tests testsuite) not fail on your machine? If
On 12/07, caiq...@redhat.com wrote:
Ananth, could you please confirm once again that step-jump-cont (from
ptrace-tests testsuite) not fail on your machine? If yes, please tell
me the version of glibc/gcc. Is PTRACE_GETREGS defined on your
machine?
Funny enough. The above failure only
Title: Fax Reception
Si ce message ne s'affiche pas correctement, Visualisez la version en ligne
conomique
Plus besoin de ligne tlphonique ddie,
ni de
On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 15:24:51 +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
But. raise_sigusr2 is not equal to the actual address of raise_sigusr2(),
this value points to the thunk (I do not know the correct English term)
ppc64 calls it function descriptor (GDB
ppc64_linux_convert_from_func_ptr_addr):
For
On 12/07, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 15:24:51 +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
But. raise_sigusr2 is not equal to the actual address of
raise_sigusr2(),
this value points to the thunk (I do not know the correct English term)
ppc64 calls it function descriptor (GDB
On 12/07, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
On 12/07, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 15:24:51 +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
But. raise_sigusr2 is not equal to the actual address of
raise_sigusr2(),
this value points to the thunk (I do not know the correct English term)
ppc64 calls
On Tue, 2009-12-01 at 23:08 +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
@@ -560,6 +625,20 @@ static inline void tracehook_report_deat
int signal, void *death_cookie,
int group_dead)
{
+ /*
+ * This barrier ensures that
