Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
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>