linux-mips
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: unkillable process due to setup_frame() failure

To: Atsushi Nemoto <anemo@mba.ocn.ne.jp>
Subject: Re: unkillable process due to setup_frame() failure
From: "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@linux-mips.org>
Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 16:24:05 +0100 (BST)
Cc: ralf@linux-mips.org, linux-mips@linux-mips.org
In-reply-to: <20050907.234413.108737010.anemo@mba.ocn.ne.jp>
Original-recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org
References: <20050906184118.GC3102@linux-mips.org> <Pine.LNX.4.61L.0509071011560.4591@blysk.ds.pg.gda.pl> <20050907134717.GA3493@linux-mips.org> <20050907.234413.108737010.anemo@mba.ocn.ne.jp>
Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org
On Wed, 7 Sep 2005, Atsushi Nemoto wrote:

> So my "which is preferred" question was inappropriate.  I had to ask
> "#1 or #2 or both or other ?"

 We should be consistent with other platforms -- having a look at e.g. the 
i386 (as it used to be the reference) and the alpha (as close-enough to 
MIPS) should reveal the answer.  IIRC, a SIGSEGV that has a handler 
installed, but which cannot be callled due to a bad stack pointer is 
forced to SIG_DFL, but you may want to double-check it.

  Maciej

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>