Ptrace problem on amd64? (Was: Re: Warcraft III can't find cdrom)

Jesse Allen the3dfxdude at
Sun Mar 13 22:46:19 CST 2005

On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 03:55:37 -0500, Gavriel State <gav at> 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 at 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.


More information about the wine-devel mailing list