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!burl!ulysses!cbosgd!ucbvax!ucdavis!lll-crg!mordor!ut-sally!std-unix From: std-unix@ut-sally.UUCP (Moderator, John Quarterman) Newsgroups: mod.std.unix Subject: Is SIGILL omitted from the list of "hardware" signals for good reason? Message-ID: <3425@ut-sally.UUCP> Date: Fri, 8-Nov-85 21:38:27 EST Article-I.D.: ut-sally.3425 Posted: Fri Nov 8 21:38:27 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 10-Nov-85 09:59:01 EST Organization: IEEE/P1003 Portable Operating System Environment Committee Lines: 53 Approved: jsq@ut-sally.UUCP This is the first of a series of articles consisting mostly of mail items from Robert Elz about P1003 Draft 4. They have all been given to the appropriate section reviewers on the P1003 committee and will be taken into account during the Trial Use balloting process. They are interspersed here with comments by Doug Gwyn (marked -Gwyn) which arrived by mail after Draft 5 was available but before the Dallas Steering Group meeting. Comments from Don Kretsch (marked -Kretsch) were collected at the Dallas meeting. I have added some more (marked -jsq) while preparing these articles for posting. All the latter three people are members of the P1003 working group. Don Kretsch is also a member of X3J11 and is the main liaison between the two committees. The usual disclaimer applies: nothing posted in this newsgroup by a committee member necessarily represents the official position of IEEE, P1003, or any other organization. Submissions do not ordinarily sit around for a month before appearing in the newsgroup. The original poster explicitly requested that responses be collected and posted with his originals. The comments on the original remarks are not necessarily definitive, and the set of people who made them is pretty arbitrary. Further responses are solicited. Date: 06 Oct 85 19:26:29 +1000 (Sun) Subject: Is SIGILL omitted from the list of "hardware" signals for good reason? >From: Robert ElzIn P1003/D4, section 3.3.2 (Signal Processing), there are several mentions to a list of distinguished signals, being SIGTRAP SIGIOT SIGEMT SIGFPE SIGBUS and SIGSEGV These are the signals to which non-recoverable hardware errors should be mapped, the action taken upon return from a signal handler after one of these signals is undefined, and SIGABRT is to be mapped to one of these. I note the absense of SIGILL from this list, and wonder why? Was this deliberately omitted - in which case I object, as a SIGILL is quite likely the best choice for SIGABRT, and it certainly may be undefined what will happen upon return from a SIGILL signal handler. Or is this a mere oversight? [ SIGILL was added for Draft 5. For some reason, Draft 5 still does not permit SIGABRT to be defined as SIGILL; I don't understand why not. I thought it was going to be allowed; only SIGFPE should be disallowed as SIGABRT. -Gwyn ] Robert Elz seismo!munnari!kre kre%munnari.oz@seismo.css.gov Volume-Number: Volume 3, Number 5