Is an uncatchable SIGABRT better than a[n unintentionally] catchable SIGSEGV/SIGILL (which varies by arch) when dangerous/corrupted process state is detected? https://www.openwall.com/lists/musl/2018/09/17/2 …
-
-
Replying to @RichFelker
I feel like the intent of your a_crash semantics are "no, really, crash no matter what", and using possibly-catchable signals don't quite match that.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @pikhq
Right now it *is* catchable, just because we didn't have a good way to make it non-catchable. Now the tail of abort() provides a way to do so, if we want to.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @RichFelker
I know, it just always felt like an accident that really violated intent.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Replying to @pikhq
Yeah I'd even considered SIGKILL before, but it's unfriendly to debugging.
8:42 PM - 16 Sep 2018
0 replies
0 retweets
0 likes
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.