Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!hao!gatech!purdue!i.cc.purdue.edu!j.cc.purdue.edu!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uxc.cso.uiuc.edu!ccvaxa!aglew
From: aglew@ccvaxa.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Possible extension to C??
Message-ID: <28700023@ccvaxa>
Date: 13 Jan 88 01:38:00 GMT
References: <3306@ihlpf.ATT.COM>
Lines: 28
Nf-ID: #R:ihlpf.ATT.COM:3306:ccvaxa:28700023:000:1196
Nf-From: ccvaxa.UUCP!aglew    Jan 12 19:38:00 1988


>I feel the value of *0 ought to be SIGBUS :-) `All the world is _not_ a VAX!'
>
>Ross Alexander, Athabasca University
>alberta!auvax!rwa

Which should it be, SIGBUS or SIGSEGV?

My POSIX Std 1003.1 - Draft 11, which is quite a bit out of date,
has SIGSEGV in the list of required signals, 3.3.1.2 p 57, but not SIGBUS,
although SIGBUS is mentioned on p 220 in B.3.3.1.1.

SIGSEGV is described as detection of an invalid memory reference.
Seems to me that SIGSEGV is the appropriate thing to provide for access
to a location that you are not permitted to access, as well as access
to a location that you might be permitted to access, but which you haven't
allocated.


Andy "Krazy" Glew. Gould CSD-Urbana.    1101 E. University, Urbana, IL 61801   
    aglew@gould.com     	- preferred, if you have nameserver
    aglew@gswd-vms.gould.com    - if you don't
    aglew@gswd-vms.arpa 	- if you use DoD hosttable
    aglew%mycroft@gswd-vms.arpa - domains are supposed to make things easier?
   
My opinions are my own, and are not the opinions of my employer, or any
other organisation. I indicate my company only so that the reader may
account for any possible bias I may have towards our products.