From: s_titz@ira.uka.de (Olaf Titz) Subject: Missing SIGBUS considered harmful Date: 25 Feb 1993 11:27:41 GMT
Ok, now I'm tired of patching the SIGBUS handlers out of every other
program I try to compile, so what's the point of it missing? I know,
the hardware lacks the bus error function, but IMHO it would
definitely do no harm to define SIGBUS in the headers anyway (which
I'm doing right now for every new library...)
Olaf
P.S.: The last program I tried was xloadimage - not exactly a small
program, and given past experience, I was expecting terrible things...
but it runs almost out of the box, save for one missing time.h include
in window.c and two (grrr...) modules which use SIGBUS...
and in the process of getting it compiled I switched (accidentally)
between 'make gcc' and 'make sysv-gcc' (now what's the right one???
I'm usually using SysV options for stability [signals etc...] but in
some fields Linux has acquired a few BSDisms... notably networking...
for the better of it...)
and it runs perfectly anyway :-)
-- | Olaf Titz - comp.sc.student | o | uknf@dkauni2.bitnet | old address | | univ. of karlsruhe - germany | _>\ _ | s_titz@ira.uka.de | is still | | +49-721-60439 | (_)<(_) | praetorius@irc | valid | "My heart is human - my blood is boiling - my brain IBM" - Mr. Roboto