Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 14:50:07 +0200 From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk> To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> Cc: atrens@nortel.ca, freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org, gram@cdsec.com, hackers@freebsd.org, julian@whistle.com, mike@smith.net.au Subject: Re: Bug in malloc/free Message-ID: <13892.874673407@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 19 Sep 1997 21:33:53 %2B1000." <199709191133.VAA14034@godzilla.zeta.org.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <199709191133.VAA14034@godzilla.zeta.org.au>, Bruce Evans writes: >>>Flushing in abort() should be safe because abort() is not among the >>>functions that are safe to call from a signal handler :-). >> >>Bummer. >> >>So what should I do in malloc when I realize that continuing doesn't >>make sense ? >> >> kill (diesig, getpid()); ? >> for which value of diesig ? > >Calling abort() from malloc() should be safe because malloc() is not >among the functions that are safe to call from a signal handler :-). I still seems to me that we need a new function to mean: "coredump, right now, no ifs, whens or buts. Thank you." -- Poul-Henning Kamp FreeBSD coreteam member phk@FreeBSD.ORG "Real hackers run -current on their laptop."
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?13892.874673407>