Date: Sat, 20 Sep 1997 08:12:43 +0930 From: Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com> To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> Cc: phk@critter.freebsd.dk, 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: <19970920081243.54396@lemis.com> In-Reply-To: <199709191318.XAA17318@godzilla.zeta.org.au>; from Bruce Evans on Fri, Sep 19, 1997 at 11:18:11PM %2B1000 References: <199709191318.XAA17318@godzilla.zeta.org.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Sep 19, 1997 at 11:18:11PM +1000, Bruce Evans wrote: >> I still seems to me that we need a new function to mean: >> "coredump, right now, no ifs, whens or buts. Thank you." > > A new signal, like SIGKILL except it generates cores, would be useful. > We would have to fix all the assumptions that sigset_t == int to make > room for another signal number. Is that really so important? You can call sigaction from a signal handler, so you can unmask the signal before calling it. A new signal for the sake of a couple of lines of library code? Greg
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19970920081243.54396>