X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 17:27:05 -0400 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: Help needed with Big List of Dodgy Apps Message-ID: <20070907212705.GA9596@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com References: <20070907175712 DOT GA8852 AT ednor DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-09) Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com On Fri, Sep 07, 2007 at 04:17:30PM -0500, Matthew Woehlke wrote: > Robert Kiesling wrote: >>>? I don't know what this means but Windows has the equivalent of >>>SIGSEGV. >>The signal is non-catchable by UNIX apps. That ability would be useful >>when malloc goes whizzing off into the video RAM, but the issue is >>almost always a bug somewhere else in the app. That is not to say that >>the system libraries are perfect, of course. > >Um... I can catch SIGSEGV just fine in my UNIX apps. Or did you mean >cygwin apps can't catch it? (Granted, I don't attempt to *recover* >from a SEGV, just say "hey, I got a SEGV" and either exit() or >abort().) Cygwin can catch SIGSEGV just fine. So can Windows. I don't want to belabor the point but there isn't much that makes sense to me here, especially in context of the subject. cgf -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/