On 10/31/18 3:52 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > I think EENTER in plain user code should have well defined semantics, > and it should get regular signals with the appropriate bits set in > the error code field in the ucontext. But we should probably > simultaneously offer a nicer API, and the libraries will use it > because it’s nicer. FWIW, if we have a signal-based version and a VDSO-based version, nobody will use the VDSO one. The Intel libraries are surely going to keep using the approach they've been using for years and I doubt their owners will be tempted even by a simpler interface to change one line of code. If we want to do the VDSO route, I think we probably need to go whole-hog and toss the signal-based one.
