> "Marc Rochkind" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote in message
>> For this signal and a few others that can be generated by a fault
>> by hardware, if they are genuinely generated by a fault, as opposed to
>> being generated synthetically by, say, kill, a special rule applies: You
>> can catch them or ignore them, but one thing you can't do it execute the
>> instruction that follows the one that caused the fault. In other words,
>> returning from a signal handler or a direct SIG_IGN both result in
> Really? Even if you reset the signal handler?
> My understanding about what's supposed to happen is that when you return
> from the signal handler, it should resume executing exactly where it
> stopped, thus generating another segmentation violation. This allows code
> 'fix' the cirstances that caused the segmentation violation (if it can
> and wants to) and then resume execution.
> Obviously, that's not going to be portable.