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