We don't have infrastructure for SA_SIGINFO yet. It would be cool
to do what Robert Swindells suggest at least, until SA_SIGINFO
support would arrive.

Jaromir

Jonathan Stone wrote:
> In message <200206192130.g5JLUOW63742@ren.fdy2.net>Robert Swindells writes
> >
> >Is there a good reason why the i386 port couldn't provide the faulting
> >address in the upper bits of the 'code' argument of a signal handler ?
> >
> >Several other ports do this when delivering SIGBUS or SIGSEGV, and it
> >makes implementing complex language systems such as Lisp or Java much
> >easier.
> 
> Even better, put the faulting address/insn address somewhere clean,
> say in a POSIX SA_SIGINFO-style signal-handler argument; and clean up
> our emulations to pass the info to an emulation-mode binary in the
> same place it would expect them for `native' apps. (Maybe we already do, haven't tried since I lost access to a licensed
> commerical common lisp).
> 
> At the time it was really frustrating: offering Lisp users a NetBSD
> machine (better-behaved than the Linux kernels they were using),
> seeing the commerically-supported Lisp run fine for demos, and then
> finding that the Common Lisp broke every damn time it needed to trap a
> signal to grow its heap. ```Sigh.'''
> 


-- 
Jaromir Dolecek <jdolecek@NetBSD.org> http://www.NetBSD.org/Ports/i386/ps2.html
-=- We should be mindful of the potential goal, but as the tantric    -=-
-=- Buddhist masters say, ``You may notice during meditation that you -=-
-=- sometimes levitate or glow.   Do not let this distract you.''     -=-