X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:date:message-id:from:reply-to:to:subject
	:references:in-reply-to:content-type; q=dns; s=default; b=Qxf0tA
	3+6xgCx3UAxnd879fECO1yQQYCYfP27Bhc8AHm6BoZcUhYcUtR6ElvsrhpA86jrU
	HFoHlkcvni32tA+HbBQ0jv14mYBtj5fle7hbeJLXt/lhcfPC5tb2jkg8512k0Au3
	4Tjwb6RDIAE2JAWsbyuWnOz5Ll7ORn3+GkhXc=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:date:message-id:from:reply-to:to:subject
	:references:in-reply-to:content-type; s=default; bh=FolzWMwgU3Ym
	FIbAkIWpk3qpCV8=; b=XSLnZ89E46zhlh5h+w9PE9P49+FU6iQPq27lPRNqCa0g
	q2DoPY8YDvfAuOBGxWEl9HSEkt4MGKjiBlCaYChV3Il+Kbdw85xfQuwUwukuEyTU
	wGRFsNowuOkFdB/1kzSi6Nk8kgii3s+m8Ng8lrlY0CXS0dJu6aPPqCEdnJX77lg=
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id: <cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found: No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KAM_NUMSUBJECT,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=Best
X-HELO: lb3-smtp-cloud9.xs4all.net
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2018 14:58:38 +0200
Message-ID: <4c43d9608bc106299632d6063ed02891@smtp-cloud9.xs4all.net>
From: Houder <houder AT xs4all DOT nl>
Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: Bug: Synchronous signals broken on Cygwin 64
References: <bc993d03-a9ac-d1c9-c33a-03cfc810edbe AT users DOT sourceforge DOT net> <d76cfa4797d30702799a93892d454d95 AT smtp-cloud9 DOT xs4all DOT net> <4a3b47db-fcdb-85f0-ec80-4cffcb7c495a AT users DOT sourceforge DOT net> <26e03635c83cba20a1ef68e238e41ec2 AT smtp-cloud9 DOT xs4all DOT net> <46f53185-1295-e1b8-0121-103f2b7c4f1f AT users DOT sourceforge DOT net>
In-Reply-to: <46f53185-1295-e1b8-0121-103f2b7c4f1f@users.sourceforge.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=fixed
User-Agent: mua.awk 0.99
X-CMAE-Envelope: MS4wfG4gTuPhFcLpd+zp/MGY4ZuwX9z9jop/1DqhlQFo4fj1vweVYgcDBsGgMIORTwDA+AcyKQTognJ6bmBaG/tirvQTZzq8dULPPGeZ/GXH9Inrtz18O64m GQjXhiT/H4REe7frIcM6oAEAWLswqUntLeyDca1P6zy1cI+17b4vRYbe6YdWCo8XMf1xII55/4ba4A==

On Thu, 26 Apr 2018 13:12:53, Thomas Zimmermann wrote:

> > > After the invocation of the handler, the program continues with the code
> > > that attempts 'to divide by zero'.
> > >=20
> > > As result of that, the handler is invoked again.
> >
> > This means that the behavior of the test case is incorrect when running
> > in 32-bit mode. There, the signal-handler function runs exactly *once*
> > and then the program terminates.
> >

> I just saw that the result after returning from a synchronous signal is
> undefined. So any behavior seems be OK. I'd still encourage to unify the
> behavior of 32-bit and 64-bit code. (See my other mail.)

You are correct.

For those who like a textbook reference, see:

Chapter 22, section 4 (Hardware-Generated Signals) of The Linux Programming
Interface by Michael Kerrisk.

Henri

> Best regards
> Thomas


--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple