On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 07:44:23AM -0800, enh wrote:
> arch/riscv64/bits/signal.h has contained a definition for SA_RESTORER since
> the initial commit, but i think that's just copy & paste from whichever
> architecture the rv64 headers were based on? the linux kernel itself
> doesn't have SA_RESTORER for rv64, unless i'm missing something?
I suspect this is just a mistake. Have you seen any ill effects from
it? If riscv folks can confirm it's wrong, I'll remove it.
i noticed this by inspection after someone had some code that (correctly) didn't compile with bionic or glibc but did with musl. in addition to rejecting the proposal to add a rv64 SA_RESTORER to bionic, i said i'd reach out to musl about removing it there :-)
Rich