On Mon, 9 May 2011 06:56:48 -0600, Matthew Flatt <mfl...@cs.utah.edu> wrote:
> Maybe someone decided that SIGSEGV is the right signal after all for an
> mprotect() violation (which Rackets catches as a write barrier) instead
> of SIGBUS.
This seems to be about right. In Debian/kFreeBSD stable (squeeze), one should
# define USE_SIGACTION_SIGNAL_KIND SIGBUS
and as of recently in unstable, one should
# define USE_SIGACTON_SIGNAL_KIND SIGSEGV
I haven't figured out a nice preprocessor test yet (I don't know for
certain such a test is possible; it might depend on the running kernel).
I'm no autoconf expert, but perhaps a little test program could detect
this.
I suppose there is a good reason not to catch both signals?
David
_________________________________________________
For list-related administrative tasks:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
