Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ut-sally.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ucbvax!ucdavis!lll-crg!mordor!ut-sally!std-unix
From: std-unix@ut-sally.UUCP (Moderator, John Quarterman)
Newsgroups: mod.std.unix
Subject: Re: Is SIGILL omitted from the list of "hardware" signals for good reason?
Message-ID: <3451@ut-sally.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 11-Nov-85 19:05:51 EST
Article-I.D.: ut-sally.3451
Posted: Mon Nov 11 19:05:51 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 13-Nov-85 07:17:48 EST
References: <3425@ut-sally.UUCP>
Organization: IEEE/P1003 Portable Operating System Environment Committee
Lines: 19
Approved: jsq@ut-sally.UUCP

Date: Sun, 10 Nov 85 16:04:35 PST
From: mordor!lll-crg!sun!guy (Guy Harris)

> Was this deliberately omitted - in which case I object, as
> a SIGILL is quite likely the best choice for SIGABRT...

Not necessarily; 4.xBSD happened to choose it for the VAX, because there's
no IOT instruction, but VAX S5's "abort" routine is a (portable!) piece of C
code which does

	kill(getpid(), SIGIOT);

(and also flushes all the Standard I/O buffers beforehand).  SIGIOT is
pretty useless except on PDP-11s; the S5 shell says "abort - core dumped"
rather than "IOT trap - core dumped" when a process gets a SIGIOT.

I think 4.xBSD should adopt S5's "abort" routine.

Volume-Number: Volume 3, Number 12