Support for i386 builds of glibc?

[Carlos O'Donell]

On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 6:59 PM, Rich Felker <dalias@aerifal.cx> wrote:
> Too bad. There's no requirement/guarantee that invoking undefined
> behavior gives you SIGSEGV. In this case, SIGSEGV would be blocked at
> the time of the fault, which, if I remember correctly, results in
> either deadlock or process termination. Maybe not the ideal result
> from a debugging standpoint, but a perfectly valid and conforming
> implementation nonetheless.

Yet there are some applications that expect to be able to rely on this
to page things in/out. I know of interpreters that rely on SIGSEGV
and the retry behaviour to bring in or interpret things lazily. This wouldn't
work in this case?

The signal handling solution introduces restrictions that didn't previously
exist and would therefore likely to be unacceptable in the general case
as opposed to a kernel solution.

Cheers,
Carlos.