Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!sharkey!edsews!uunet!vsi!friedl From: friedl@vsi.COM (Stephen J. Friedl) Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: Re: Process sizes on the NeXT Summary: Haven't they fixed the shell yet? Message-ID: <1047@vsi.COM> Date: 8 Feb 89 03:44:01 GMT References: <9013@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> <4180@pt.cs.cmu.edu> Distribution: usa Organization: V-Systems, Inc. -- Santa Ana, CA Lines: 25 In article <4180@pt.cs.cmu.edu> avie@wb1.cs.cmu.edu (Avadis Tevanian) writes: < < /bin/sh allocates 2meg to overcome a problem with restarting instructions < on a 68030 (/bin/sh used to handle SIGSEGV's to extend its break region, < that doesn't work on a 68030). In article , dupuy@cs.cs.columbia.edu (Alexander Dupuy) writes: < < Am I reading this right? I remember that there was a problem with the 68000 < (the original) being unable to restart some instructions - that was why you < needed a 68010, which allowed you to restart all instructions, if you < wanted to have a demand-paged virtual memory system. Is it really true < that the 68030 has the same proble the 68000 had? How about looking at this from the other direction. Why in world does the shell *still* use SIGSEGV this way? Does the SVR3 shell still do this? An incredulous Steve -- Stephen J. Friedl 3B2-kind-of-guy friedl@vsi.com V-Systems, Inc. I speak for you only attmail!vsi!friedl Santa Ana, CA USA +1 714 545 6442 {backbones}!vsi!friedl Nancy Reagan on these *stupid* .signatures: "Enough already, OK?"