On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 03:55:37 -0500, Gavriel State <gav@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Actually, we first learned about the issue in the November-December > timeframe, and mentioned it in our 4.2 release notes in December. In > general, we still recommend that people use 2.4 kernels, since the > scheduling changes can cause performance issues. We started to have a look > at the problem, but by then Linus was already involved and the issue seemed > well in hand. Cedega's signal handling code is certainly close enough to > Wine at the lowest levels to still be affected by the same kind of issues > with ptrace. > > While we've tested the 2.6.11 ptrace fixes on x86, we had not done so on > x86-64. We haven't recieved any reports from users that it's still broken, > but if the equivalent x86-64 ptrace patch didn't get applied to 2.6.11, the > it presumably could still be broken. Though I don't know how the 64-bit > kernel deals with 32-bit code in this respect - is it possible that the x86 > 32 bit pthreads code is being used for 32-bit processes even on a 64-bit > kernel? > > Take care, > -Gav > > -- Gavriel State, Founder & CTO TransGaming Technologies Inc. > gav@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://www.transgaming.com Let the games begin! Ok, I understand now. I'm really looking for a better info under what conditions it fails. If wine and cedega are similar enough here, then they actually should be both exhibiting trouble on x86-64. Also, Andi Kleen has made up x86-64 patches, but hasn't merged them because they are untested. I offered to have them tested. So perhaps I'll get access to an amd system or maybe Thomas Zeeman find out more. I really haven't seen an amd system in action here. Jesse _______________________________________________ wine-users mailing list wine-users@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.winehq.org/mailman/listinfo/wine-users
