Re: signal(SIGFPE,SIG_IGN), possible solution?

H. Peter Anvin (hpa@freya.yggdrasil.com)
27 Apr 1996 06:33:01 GMT


Followup to: <Pine.LNX.3.91.960425074845.22041C-100000@linux.cs.Helsin=
ki.FI>
By author: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@cs.helsinki.fi>
In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
>=20
> What is so horribly hard in understanding the fact that this is not a=
=20
> kernel issue at all. Why do people insist that the added code should =
go=20
> into the KERNEL, when the problem is in your broken programs?
>=20

No kidding. However, it seems to me that either SIGILL, SIGIOT or
SIGBUS (in decreasing order of personal preference) would be a better
signal than SIGFPE; I think it is reasonable that a program should be
able to expect that receiving a SIGFPE means an FP exception has
occurred.

By the way, how does one turn on FP exceptions (ideally, specific IEEE
exceptions) under Linux/i386?

-hpa
--=20
PGP public key available - finger hpa@zytor.com
"The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens." -- Bah=E1'u=
'll=E1h
I don't work for Yggdrasil, but they sponsor the linux.* hierarchy.