Date: Fri, 10 Nov 1995 13:04:41 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> To: rminnich@Sarnoff.COM (Ron G. Minnich) Cc: terry@lambert.org, lm@slovax.engr.sgi.com, hackers@FreeBSD.org, waa@aurora.cis.upenn.edu, deraadt@theos.com, chuck@maria.wustl.edu Subject: Re: larry: you might want to add this to lmbench (but i'm not sure) Message-ID: <199511102004.NAA04257@phaeton.artisoft.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.SOL.3.91.951110143824.13530H-100000@morse> from "Ron G. Minnich" at Nov 10, 95 02:40:58 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> terry, you make some interesting points. I'm curious about one comment > though: > > > You must have explicitly turned off SIGSEGV and SIGBUS in order to > > perform these tests. One wonders how much of your time is spent in > > the sigtrampoline code: another case of a failure path requiring > > optimization to better the score. > > did you read the code? I appended it to the end of the message. It's > fairly simple. Ah. Sorry. I only read the technical decription. I've now gone back and read the code. The EFAULT return saves you. I'd actually hope that programs that got this kind of error would be murdered by the OS. Code that didn't check its return values in the face of such an error shouldn't be allowed to continue running. Bad moral convictions on the part of POSIX. 8-(. Regards, Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199511102004.NAA04257>