Some platforms used the wrong definition of stack_t where the flags and
size fields were swapped or where the flags field had type ulong instead
of int.
Due to the presence of padding space in the structure and the prevalence
of little-endian machines this problem went unnoticed for a long time.
The type definitions have been cross-checked with the ones defined in
the Linux kernel v5.9, plus some older versions for a few architecture
that have been removed and Xilinx's kernel fork for NiosII [1].
The bsd-user headers remain unchanged as I don't know if they are wrong
or not.
[1] https://github.com/Xilinx/linux-xlnx/blob/master/arch/nios2/include/uapi/asm/signal.h
Signed-off-by: Giuseppe Musacchio <thatlemon@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
Message-Id: <e9d47692-ee92-009f-6007-0abc3f502b97@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Laurent Vivier <laurent@vivier.eu>
Instead of calling setup_frame() conditionally to a list of known targets,
define TARGET_ARCH_HAS_SETUP_FRAME if the target provides the function
and call it only if the macro is defined.
Move declarations of setup_frame() and setup_rt_frame() to
linux-user/signal-common.h
Signed-off-by: Laurent Vivier <laurent@vivier.eu>
Reviewed-by: Richard Henderson <richard.henderson@linaro.org>
Message-Id: <20180424192635.6027-21-laurent@vivier.eu>
No code change, only move code from signal.c to
ppc/signal.c, except adding includes and
exporting setup_frame() and setup_rt_frame().
Signed-off-by: Laurent Vivier <laurent@vivier.eu>
Reviewed-by: Alex Bennée <alex.bennee@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Richard Henderson <richard.henderson@linaro.org>
Message-Id: <20180424192635.6027-20-laurent@vivier.eu>
These headers all use TARGET_SIGNAL_H as header guard symbol. Reuse
of the same guard symbol in multiple headers is okay as long as they
cannot be included together.
Since we can avoid guard symbol reuse easily, do so: use guard symbol
$target_TARGET_SIGNAL_H for linux-user/$target/target_signal.h.
Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Richard Henderson <rth@twiddle.net>
In the very least, a change like this requires discussion on the list.
The naming convention is goofy and it causes a massive merge problem. Something
like this _must_ be presented on the list first so people can provide input
and cope with it.
This reverts commit 99a0949b72.
Signed-off-by: Anthony Liguori <aliguori@us.ibm.com>
