home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Submitted-by: karish@mindcraft.com (Chuck Karish)
-
- In article <1992Feb26.202432.17940@uunet.uu.net> WULKAN@TOROLAB6.VNET.IBM.COM
- ("Mike Wulkan") writes:
- >I had no question regarding additional implementation defined signals.
- >My question was whether an implementation could choose to designate one
- >of the other Posix defined signals as "computational" with regards to
- >the undefined behaviour when returning from a handler? I think the
- >answer is no.
-
- I agree.
-
- >Why would the behavior of a process be UNDEFINED if the signal has NO
- >EFFECT on the process?
-
- Because the event that caused the signal to be generated
- has already corrupted the process's execution environment.
-
- >Obviously the signal has an effect!
-
- When it's ignored?
-
- >Why not
- >simply disallow SIG_IGN to be specified for SIGFPE, SIGILL and SIGSEGV as
- >is done for SIGKILL and SIGSTOP?
-
- Because the process can sometimes exit gracefully. No
- guarantee, though.
-
- >At the very least it would seem that
- >the section would be more accurately worded:
- >
- > The behavior of the process is undefined after a SIGFPE, SIGILL, or
- > SIGSEGV signal is delivered, otherwise delivery of the signal shall
- > have no effect on the process.
-
- The behavior of the process is defined after one of these
- signals is delivered: abnormal termination. The second
- sentence is unnecessary, because the process of catching a
- signal is already well defined. By re-writing this, you've
- removed the warning that the signals in question indicate
- that the process is in trouble from which the operating
- system can not rescue it.
-
- Chuck Karish karish@mindcraft.com
- Mindcraft, Inc. (415) 323-9000
-
-
- Volume-Number: Volume 27, Number 20
-
-