On Mon, 05 Mar 2012 13:29:09 -0500, deadalnix <deadal...@gmail.com> wrote:
Le 05/03/2012 15:26, Steven Schveighoffer a écrit :
On Fri, 02 Mar 2012 10:19:13 -0500, deadalnix <deadal...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Le 02/03/2012 15:37, Jacob Carlborg a écrit :
Isn't it quite unsafe to throw an exception in a signal ?
One does not need to throw an exception. Just print a stack trace. I've
advocated for this multiple times. I agree it costs nothing to
implement, and who cares about safety when the app is about to crash?!
The signal handler is called on top of the stack, but the information
to retrieve the stack trace are system dependant. BTW, using lib like
libsigsegv can help a lot to make it safe. It isn't safe ATM, but it
is doable.
libsigsegv is used to perform custom handling of page faults (e.g.
loading pages of memory from a database instead of the MMC). You do not
need libsigsegv to handle SEGV signals.
-Steve
No you don't, but if you want to know if you are facing a stackoverflow
or a null deference for exemple, this greatly help the implementation.
It's somewhat off the table with it's GPL license. But even so, I don't
see that it helps here, we are not looking to continue execution, just
more information on the crash than "Segmentation Fault".
-Steve
