Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | Date | Tue, 19 Aug 2003 12:34:56 -0700 | From | "H. Peter Anvin" <> | Subject | Re: Dumb question: Why are exceptions such as SIGSEGV not logged |
| |
David Schwartz wrote: >>> There is no mechanism that is guaranteed to terminate a >>>process other than >>>sending yourself an exception that is not caught. So in cases >>>where you must >>>guarantee that your process terminates, it is perfectly >>>reasonable to send >>>yourself a SIGILL. > > >>exit(2)? > > > And what if a registered 'atexit' function needs to acquire a mutex that is > held by a thread that's in an endless loop? What if a standard I/O stream > has buffered data for a local disk that failed? I'm looking for a mechanism > that is guaranteed to terminate a process immediately. >
Correction...
_exit(2).
There is no exit(2); I was talking about _exit(2) and you're talking about exit(3).
_exit(2) *is* guaranteed to terminate a process immediately.
-hpa
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |