Article View: mod.std.unix
Article #59Re: Is SIGILL omitted from the list of "hardware" signals for good reason?
From: Moderator, John Quarterman
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1985 09:41
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1985 09:41
19 lines
1439 bytes
1439 bytes
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 85 16:04:35 PST From: mordor!lll-crg!sun!guy (Guy Harris) > Was this deliberately omitted - in which case I object, as > a SIGILL is quite likely the best choice for SIGABRT... Not necessarily; 4.xBSD happened to choose it for the VAX, because there's no IOT instruction, but VAX S5's "abort" routine is a (portable!) piece of C code which does kill(getpid(), SIGIOT); (and also flushes all the Standard I/O buffers beforehand). SIGIOT is pretty useless except on PDP-11s; the S5 shell says "abort - core dumped" rather than "IOT trap - core dumped" when a process gets a SIGIOT. I think 4.xBSD should adopt S5's "abort" routine. Volume-Number: Volume 3, Number 12
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<184@bty.UUCP>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!whuxcc!infopro!bty!std-unix@ut-sally.UUCP (Moderator, John Quarterman)References:
<3425@ut-sally.UUCP>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site bty.UUCP Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!whuxcc!infopro!bty!std-unix@ut-sally.UUCP (Moderator, John Quarterman) From: std-unix@ut-sally.UUCP (Moderator, John Quarterman) Newsgroups: mod.std.unix Subject: Re: Is SIGILL omitted from the list of "hardware" signals for good reason? Message-ID: <184@bty.UUCP> Date: Thu, 14-Nov-85 04:41:02 EST Article-I.D.: bty.184 Posted: Thu Nov 14 04:41:02 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 16-Nov-85 01:10:28 EST References: <3425@ut-sally.UUCP> Sender: root@bty.UUCP Organization: BTY, Inc., Rockaway, NJ Lines: 19 Approved: jsq@ut-sally.UUCP