![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
William Lee Irwin III <wli@holomorphy.com> wrote: >> You're probably thinking of 2:2 split patches. >> 2:2 splits are at least technically ABI violations, which is probably >> why this isn't merged etc. Applications sensitive to it are uncommon. >> Yes, the SVR4 i386 ELF/ABI spec literally mandates 0xC0000000 as the >> top of the process address space. On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 11:08:38PM -0800, Martin J. Bligh wrote: > You mean like we place the stack in the "ABI compliant place"? > Yeah, right ;-) No specific address is ever cited as a requirement for stack placement; stack immediately below text is merely given as a "typical arrangement". i.e. "Although applications may control their memory assignments, the typical arrangement appears below: [diagram and other bits]" It then goes on to say, "Processes, therefore, shount _not_ depend on finding their stack at a particular virtual address." The process address space boundary is, however, stated as a requirement: "the reserved area shall not consume more than 1GB of the address space." -- wli - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 12:59 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||