Messages in this thread | | | From | (H. Peter Anvin) | Subject | Re: signal(SIGFPE,SIG_IGN), possible solution? | Date | 27 Apr 1996 06:33:01 GMT |
| |
Followup to: <Pine.LNX.3.91.960425074845.22041C-100000@linux.cs.Helsinki.FI> By author: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@cs.helsinki.fi> In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel > > What is so horribly hard in understanding the fact that this is not a > kernel issue at all. Why do people insist that the added code should go > into the KERNEL, when the problem is in your broken programs? >
No kidding. However, it seems to me that either SIGILL, SIGIOT or SIGBUS (in decreasing order of personal preference) would be a better signal than SIGFPE; I think it is reasonable that a program should be able to expect that receiving a SIGFPE means an FP exception has occurred.
By the way, how does one turn on FP exceptions (ideally, specific IEEE exceptions) under Linux/i386?
-hpa -- PGP public key available - finger hpa@zytor.com "The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens." -- Bahá'u'lláh I don't work for Yggdrasil, but they sponsor the linux.* hierarchy.
| |