Re: stack overflow is basically broken

[Gary V. Vaughan]

Salut Marc,

On Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 06:46:52PM +0200, Marc Espie wrote:
> The routines to detect stack overflow throuh segv  are basically
> broken. The idea may be fine, but it ends up calling a sigv handler
> that uses gettext, printf, stdout... all of which are definitely NOT
> sig-safe.  Pity, because the hardcode routine is basically very careful
> to use write(2), to avoid this.
> 
> I haven't checked that translation magic is signal-safe.
> - I doubt it;
> - stdio is not signal-safe in any kind of portable setting anyways.

Bummer.  I haven't really looked at this code, but I agree with what
you are saying.  I've added a copy of your email to the M4 TODO file
so that we don;t forget to look into this problem.

Cheers,
        Gary.
-- 
  ())_. Gary V. Vaughan     gary@(oranda.demon.co.uk|gnu.org)
  ( '/  Research Scientist  http://www.oranda.demon.co.uk       ,_())____
  / )=  GNU Hacker          http://www.gnu.org/software/libtool  \'      `&
`(_~)_  Tech' Author        http://sources.redhat.com/autobook   =`---d__/