This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: ARC vs. generic sigaction (was Re: [PATCH 08/21] ARC: Linux Syscall Interface)
On Wed, 19 Dec 2018, Vineet Gupta wrote:
> I took a stab at this but not really happy with taking this approach.
>
> (1). Common code assumes disparate kernel and userland sigaction struct even
> though there's no reason for a *new* port to be: its not like all glibc code is
> shared/common although I agree it is best to do so as much as possible
> So this requires explicit copy over of 1 struct into other, when it could have
> been avoided altogether for some cases atleast (!SA_RESTORER).
So make the generic code optimize those cases based on appropriate
conditionals (making sure to verify those conditionals are right for every
architecture in glibc).
Any new architecture having much architecture-specific code for the kernel
interface in glibc, beyond the basic definitions of how to call a syscall,
is suspect, given that the kernel structures should be consistent across
asm-generic architectures; we ought to make the defaults work so they are
genuinely suitable as defaults for new architectures. This may require
changes to the sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/ code if it's currently "generic"
to old architectures but not so good for asm-generic ones.
--
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com