Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 16:21:09 -0600 From: seebs@plethora.net (Peter Seebach) To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Setting memory allocators for library functions. Message-ID: <200102262221.f1QML9621604@guild.plethora.net> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 26 Feb 2001 19:18:57 -0300." <Pine.LNX.4.33.0102261917120.5502-100000@duckman.distro.conectiva>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <Pine.LNX.4.33.0102261917120.5502-100000@duckman.distro.conectiva>, Rik van Riel writes: >I don't think a failed kernel-level allocation after overcommit >should generate a segfault. >IMHO it should send a bus error (or a sigkill if the process >doesn't exit after the SIGBUS). Same difference, so far as the language is concerned. >Rationale: >SIGSEGV for _user_ mistakes (process accesses wrong stuff) >SIGBUS for _system_ errors (ECC error, kernel messes up, ...) As long as we grant that it's the kernel *messing up*, I won't complain; no one said an implementation could be perfect, and known bugs go with the territory. I only object to attempts to portray it as a legitimate and correct implementation of the C spec. -s To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200102262221.f1QML9621604>