Re: [MiNT] kernel 1.15.10b fragmentation

[Guido.Flohr@t-online.de (Guido Flohr)]

Hi,

On Tue, Jan 02, 2001 at 08:07:32PM +0100, Thomas Binder wrote:
> > 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.

But the encapsulation in a simple interface would still help C programmers
that are less familiar with setjmp/longjmp and signal handlers than you
are. ;-)

> > > 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.

I see.  I was just curious, didn't want to change it.

Ciao

Guido