Marius Vollmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Mikael Djurfeldt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > What you could, and probably should, do is to call SCM_TICK in longer
> > loops in your simulator code.
>
> Yes, that's a good suggestion. However, the problem is that once a
> segv occured, and the handler for SIGSEGV simply returns, the program
> just reexecutes the instruction that caused the segv. No SCM_TICK can
> help here.
But, as you previously suggested, it is not sensible to try to
continue executing code after a segv. That *kind* of signals should
cause immediate abort, I think.
