RE: Dumb question: Why are exceptions such as SIGSEGV not logged

[David Schwartz]

> > 	There is no mechanism that is guaranteed to terminate a
> > process other than
> > sending yourself an exception that is not caught. So in cases
> > where you must
> > guarantee that your process terminates, it is perfectly
> > reasonable to send
> > yourself a SIGILL.

> exit(2)?

	And what if a registered 'atexit' function needs to acquire a mutex that is
held by a thread that's in an endless loop? What if a standard I/O stream
has buffered data for a local disk that failed? I'm looking for a mechanism
that is guaranteed to terminate a process immediately.

	DS


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/