On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 09:00:19AM -0700, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > Ralf wrote: > > I found this in IRIX 6.5 documentation: > > > > Caution: Signals raised by the instruction stream, SIGILL, > > SIGEMT, SIGBUS, and SIGSEGV, will cause infinite loops > > if their handler returns, or the action is set to SIG_IGN. > > The Single Unix Specification (Issue 6) marks the behavior > explicitly undefined. I should have mentioned that above mentioned paragraph of IRIX documentation was in the section on implmentation specific behaviour. > Bookmark this: http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399 > > Not the latest set of documents, but that can be regarded > as a virtue. :) > > Under pthread_sigmask and sigprocmask, for blocking: > > If any of the SIGFPE, SIGILL, SIGSEGV, or SIGBUS > signals are generated while they are blocked, > the result is undefined, unless the signal > was generated by the kill() function, the > sigqueue() function, or the raise() function. > > Under ``2.4 Signal Concepts'', for SIG_IGN: > > SIG_IGN > > Ignore signal. > > Delivery of the signal shall have no effect on > the process. The behavior of a process is undefined > after it ignores a SIGFPE, SIGILL, SIGSEGV, > or SIGBUS signal that was not generated by kill(), > sigqueue(), or raise(). > > So, as I suspected, there are in fact no requirements > from the applicable spec. Infinite looping or > stopping the process anyway are conforming responses, > as is rebooting or halting the machine with a > ``panic'' message. I'd not go quite as far as that but execve("/usr/bin/nethack") certainly would be acceptable. Ralf
