Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 09:13:14 -0700 From: Matthew Jacob <mj@feral.com> To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, Ed Schouten <ed@80386.nl> Subject: Re: svn commit: r209595 - head/sys/kern Message-ID: <4C2B6D1A.2060302@feral.com> In-Reply-To: <201006301205.14133.jhb@freebsd.org> References: <201006292044.o5TKiJd7031766@svn.freebsd.org> <201006300934.47629.jhb@freebsd.org> <4C2B4DC6.1050404@feral.com> <201006301205.14133.jhb@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
John Baldwin wrote: > On Wednesday 30 June 2010 9:59:34 am Matthew Jacob wrote: > >> Excuse my ignorance, but aren't signals supposed to be to processes, not >> specific threads? >> > > Not for synchronous events. For example, when you get a segfault due to a > NULL pointer the SIGSEGV is sent to the thread that actually segfaulted, not > any random thread in the process. Similarly for floating-point exceptions, > etc. POSIX also mandates this for SIGPIPE as you can see from this > description of 'EPIPE' from write(2) and fflush(3): > > [EPIPE] > An attempt is made to write to a pipe or FIFO that is not open for > reading by any process, or that only has one end open. A SIGPIPE signal > shall also be sent to the thread. > > (Note thread, not process, in other places the language uses process, but it > specifically uses thread here.) > > Thanks!
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4C2B6D1A.2060302>