Matt Mackall wrote: > Ok, let me be explicit: think systems with absolutely no facility for > recording or displaying a backtrace. You don't know much about unwinding, do you? The same information is needed for C++ exception handling, thread cancellation, etc. Now go on and tell me you don't need this either. > As far as I'm aware, uclibc has no vdso support, so it might as well > not exist for systems using it. And I told you that the support which magically makes all this sometimes work without the unwind info in the vdso will sooner or later break. Then whatever other libc is out there has to get vdso support to be able to function correctly. -- ➧ Ulrich Drepper ➧ Red Hat, Inc. ➧ 444 Castro St ➧ Mountain View, CA ❖
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH] Make sysenter support optional
- From: Bernd Petrovitsch <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] Make sysenter support optional
- References:
- [PATCH] Make sysenter support optional
- From: Matt Mackall <[email protected]>
- Re: Fwd: [PATCH] Make sysenter support optional
- From: Ulrich Drepper <[email protected]>
- Re: Fwd: [PATCH] Make sysenter support optional
- From: Matt Mackall <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] Make sysenter support optional
- From: Ulrich Drepper <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] Make sysenter support optional
- From: Matt Mackall <[email protected]>
- [PATCH] Make sysenter support optional
- Prev by Date: Re: [patch 00/2] improve .text size on gcc 4.0 and newer compilers
- Next by Date: Re: [POLL] SLAB : Are the 32 and 192 bytes caches really usefull on x86_64 machines ?
- Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH] Make sysenter support optional
- Next by thread: Re: [PATCH] Make sysenter support optional
- Index(es):
 |