Re: Dumb question: Why are exceptions such as SIGSEGV not logged

["H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>]

David Schwartz wrote:
>>>	There is no mechanism that is guaranteed to terminate a
>>>process other than
>>>sending yourself an exception that is not caught. So in cases
>>>where you must
>>>guarantee that your process terminates, it is perfectly
>>>reasonable to send
>>>yourself a SIGILL.
> 
> 
>>exit(2)?
> 
> 
> 	And what if a registered 'atexit' function needs to acquire a mutex that is
> held by a thread that's in an endless loop? What if a standard I/O stream
> has buffered data for a local disk that failed? I'm looking for a mechanism
> that is guaranteed to terminate a process immediately.
> 

Correction...

_exit(2).

There is no exit(2); I was talking about _exit(2) and you're talking
about exit(3).

_exit(2) *is* guaranteed to terminate a process immediately.

	-hpa