Hi, Segher.
On Wed, Aug 01, 2018 at 02:49:03AM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 01, 2018 at 12:03:50AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Wed, 2018-08-01 at 08:37 +0200, Christophe LEROY wrote:
> > > Le 31/07/2018 à 16:50, Murilo Opsfelder Araujo a écrit :
> > > I would suggest to instead use a function like this:
> > >
> > > static const char *signame(int signr)
> > > {
> > > if (signr == SIGBUS)
> > > return "bus error";
> > > if (signr == SIGFPE)
> > > return "floating point exception";
> > > if (signr == SIGILL)
> > > return "illegal instruction";
> > > if (signr == SIGILL)
> > > return "segfault";
> > > if (signr == SIGTRAP)
> > > return "unhandled trap";
> > > return "unknown signal";
> > > }
> >
> > trivia:
> >
> > Unless the if tests are ordered most to least likely,
> > perhaps it would be better to use a switch/case and
> > let the compiler decide.
>
> That would also show there are two entries for SIGILL (here and in the
> original patch), one of them very wrong.
Good catch. I'll take care of that in my next respin.
> Check the table with psignal or something?
Nice suggestion. Thanks!
Cheers
Murilo
