On Oct 17, 2006, at 3:22 PM, Christos Zoulas wrote:

> I don't see the benefit of changing the signal from SIGBUS to SIGILL
> just because we don't have the faulting address available. I really
> think that we should not send SIGILL back because you usually get
> SIGILL when you start executing garbage, not when you are inside
> your regular code.

I don't think that's necessarily true.  SIGILL could certainly be  
interpreted also as the signal equivalent of EINVAL (invalid arguments  
given to an instruction -- perhaps a value out of range).

-- thorpej