Hi! On Tue, Jan 02, 2001 at 07:28:57PM +0100, Guido Flohr wrote: > > The main problem with that call is of course that it would not help at > > all when the user doesn't run a MiNT kernel that already supports it. > > Non-MiNT systems don't have memory privacy politics and for systems > that don't support the new call but do support signal handlers I could > write an emulation in the libc. Even for large blocks that is not that > expansive because you only have to test one byte per requested page. Well, but that emulation in the libc wouldn't help non-C-programmers. And I see them as the ones that would benefit most from that call, anyway. > > It's SIGBUS, but anyway: I don't think that performance is actually > > critical for such checks. > > Oops, why is it SIGBUS? For historical reasons? No, because the MMU raises SIGBUS (bus error) for illegal accesses. SIGSEGV is what MiNT maps address errors to. Of course, it would be more logical (and POSIX-conforming) to only have "memory violation type=hardware" mapped to SIGBUS, all others to SIGSEGV, but IMO it wouldn't be wise to change it at this point - I guess there's already quite a lot of code that depends on SIGBUS being sent. Ciao Thomas -- Thomas Binder (Gryf @ IRCNet) gryf@hrzpub.tu-darmstadt.de PGP-key available on request! binder@rbg.informatik.tu-darmstadt.de Vote against SPAM: http://www.politik-digital.de/spam/
Attachment:
pgpxGGoKsaecs.pgp
Description: PGP signature