Steven Schveighoffer wrote: > 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". > I wonder if deadalnix isn't confusing with libSegFault which is part of GNU's glibc: http://blog.andrew.net.au/2007/08/15/
Jerome PS: Sorry if this message is sent twice, there was an error the first time and it looks like it didn't get through... -- mailto:jeber...@free.fr http://jeberger.free.fr Jabber: jeber...@jabber.fr
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature