Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 12:50:22 -0800 From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> To: Nate Williams <nate@yogotech.com> Cc: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>, Daniel Eischen <eischen@pcnet1.pcnet.com>, Dan Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com>, Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org>, Archie Cobbs <archie@dellroad.org>, Alfred Perlstein <bright@mu.org>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Request for review: getcontext, setcontext, etc Message-ID: <3C3F500E.A1736EC0@mindspring.com> References: <20020112054041.J3330-100000@gamplex.bde.org> <3C3F455B.86856045@mindspring.com> <15423.17965.472722.218250@caddis.yogotech.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Nate Williams wrote: > > > I'm not saying any more, since I have made negative progress attempting > > > to explain this. > > > > In other words, SIGFPE is about as trappable as SIGBUS or SIGILL, > > and means about the same thing: an unrecoverable fault. > > It correctly works in single threaded programs in FreeBSD 2.2, but not > in 4.4. I think this is the code that was ripped out which made the 386 happy. > > If you think about it a little, since you can't guarantee delivery > > of signals to particular threads anyway, it makes sense that SIGFPE > > would not be useful under any circumstances in threaded programs, > > no matter how you sliced it. > > What Bruce is saying is that it's not possible to deliver the signal *AT > ALL*, let alone in threaded programs. However, he contradicts his own > statements in later parts of the same email, hence the confusion. I think there is still some confusion about "FPE" occuring vs. "SIGFPE" being raised. I think he's saying that it's possible, but never useful to deliver it. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3C3F500E.A1736EC0>