[#5219] Segmentation fault in timeout.rb — Michel Pastor <K@...>

Hi,

18 messages 2005/06/16
[#5220] Re: Segmentation fault in timeout.rb — Eric Hodel <drbrain@...7.net> 2005/06/16

[#5221] Re: Segmentation fault in timeout.rb — Michel Pastor <K@...> 2005/06/16

On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 05:03:18 +0900

[#5223] Re: Segmentation fault in timeout.rb — nobu.nokada@... 2005/06/17

Hi,

[#5296] Subversion — Shugo Maeda <shugo@...>

Hi,

64 messages 2005/06/30
[#5297] Re: Subversion — Curt Hibbs <curt@...> 2005/06/30

Shugo Maeda wrote:

[#5298] Re: Subversion — Nikolai Weibull <mailing-lists.ruby-core@...> 2005/06/30

Curt Hibbs wrote:

[#5301] Re: Subversion — Austin Ziegler <halostatue@...> 2005/06/30

On 6/30/05, Nikolai Weibull

[#5304] Re: Subversion — Nikolai Weibull <mailing-lists.ruby-core@...> 2005/06/30

Austin Ziegler wrote:

[#5305] Re: Subversion — Austin Ziegler <halostatue@...> 2005/06/30

On 6/30/05, Nikolai Weibull

[#5307] Re: Subversion — mathew <meta@...> 2005/06/30

Austin Ziegler wrote:

[#5308] Re: Subversion — Austin Ziegler <halostatue@...> 2005/06/30

On 6/30/05, mathew <meta@pobox.com> wrote:

[#5311] Re: Subversion — mathew <meta@...> 2005/07/01

Austin Ziegler wrote:

[#5323] Re: Subversion — Austin Ziegler <halostatue@...> 2005/07/01

On 7/1/05, mathew <meta@pobox.com> wrote:

[#5325] Re: Subversion — Nikolai Weibull <mailing-lists.ruby-core@...> 2005/07/01

Austin Ziegler wrote:

Re: [ ruby-Bugs-2038 ] ruby 1.8 CVS do not work with --enable-pthread configure option

From: ville.mattila@...
Date: 2005-06-20 11:35:53 UTC
List: ruby-core #5257
>>  This patch works correctly. It passes the ruby tests correctly. Could
you
>> put this to CVS.
>
>Done.
>

      I verified that CVS sources behaves correctly as well.

>> Thanks for very intersting
>>  gdb session and analysis. Maybe there is bug in somewhere in solaris
>> setjmp function family? In linux this works just fine.
>
>The problem is caused by a combination of gcc, getcontext/setcontext
>and SPARC (or IA64).  So I think it can be caused on Linux/SPARC and
>Linux/IA64.
>
>It is reasonable that gcc expects registers in register window/stack
>is not changed across a function call.  It is because register
>window/stack is a mechanism to save/restore registers automatically.
>
>It is reasonable that getcontext/setcontext doesn't preserve all
>registers.  It makes the functions slower, especially on processors
>which have many registers.
>
>It is reasonable that processors have a special mechanism to make
>function call faster.
>
>So I'm not sure what is wrong.  However I think gcc is the most
>proper target to have a workaround for the problem because gcc already
>knows setjmp may return twice.

      It would require a sample.c test program, to get gcc people
interested and possibly they
      wouldn't still fix this one. In the mean time your fix works very
nicely. Thanks for fast response.




In This Thread

Prev Next