Jonas Maebe <jonas.ma...@elis.ugent.be>: > On 09 Nov 2009, at 21:03, Michael Van Canneyt wrote: > > > On Mon, 9 Nov 2009, "Vinzent Höfler" wrote: > > > >> As wrong as in "Don't call most system functions from within a > >> signal handler.", maybe? > > > > Hmm... In that case, many exceptions would not work either ? > > The sigaction handlers for catching exceptions have been fixed quite a > while ago already to only collect the necessary information from the > signal context, [...]
Additionally, signals causing run-time exceptions are triggered by the code itself, meaning things like SIGSEGV[*] are not actually "interrupting", rather they synchronously "transfer control" in a relatively well-defined way. Maybe the analogy to good ol' DOS programming helps: Then signals are just interrupts, "synchronous" signals are "int xx" instructions, while "asynchronous" are real "hardware interrupts". Unfortunately you'll never know which will be which. ;) Vinzent. [*] Of course, the SIGSEGV still could have been sent from another process making it interrupting and asynchronous like any other signal. -- Jetzt kostenlos herunterladen: Internet Explorer 8 und Mozilla Firefox 3.5 - sicherer, schneller und einfacher! http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/chbrowser _______________________________________________ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
