Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 02:23:51AM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
>> Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 04:35:12PM +0000, Eric Blake wrote:
>>>>> I really don't like the games this package plays. I'm halfway tempted
>>>>> to just make it nonfunctional in Cygwin.
>>>> It works just fine, especially now that it only uses SEH for stack
>>>> overflow detection instead of assuming that all SEH faults imply
>>>> SIGSEGV.
>>> The point is that this is using an undocumented "interface" into
>>> Cygwin. If we decide to change anything in SEH handler, which we do
>> >from time to time, this code is likely to break. We are not likely to
>>> keep libsigsegv in mind if we make future changes to the exception
>>> handler.
>> Well, this line of argument also leads to the suggestion that we should
>> define a nice stable interface for it to use. I haven't researched it
>> in depth but if, as it appears, this is a real library used by real
>> Linux apps to do a real job, and it is our goal to make those apps
>> "just recompile and work" on Cygwin as they do on Linux, then we should
>> give serious consideration to supporting libsigsegv and making what it
>> wants to do possible for it.
>>
>> cheers,
>
> There isn't any actionable thing that I can respond to in the above
> other than to point out that it seems like seem like you weren't reading
> the discussion very carefully.
Well, there isn't any actionable thing that I can respond to in the above
other than to point out that I actually /was/ reading the discussion
carefully, which is precisely *why* I made that suggestion.
Perhaps we should both elucidate our statements? It's so much easier than
playing guessing games.
cheers,
DaveK
--
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
