home.social

#segmentationfault — Public Fediverse posts

Live and recent posts from across the Fediverse tagged #segmentationfault, aggregated by home.social.

fetched live
  1. Have you ever wondered why segmentation faults are abbreviated "SIGSEGV" in Linux?

    Where does the "V" come from? Shouldn't it be "SIGSEGF" instead? ("F" for Fault - not "Vault" 😉)

    David Wragg and Marek Majkowski have a bit of UNIX history for you!

    "Why is there a "V" in SIGSEGV Segmentation Fault?" -
    blog.cloudflare.com/why-is-the

    #linux #segmentationFault #sigsegv #unix #history #c #programming #developer #software #softwareDevelopment #embedded

  2. Have you ever wondered why segmentation faults are abbreviated "SIGSEGV" in Linux?

    Where does the "V" come from? Shouldn't it be "SIGSEGF" instead? ("F" for Fault - not "Vault" 😉)

    David Wragg and Marek Majkowski have a bit of UNIX history for you!

    "Why is there a "V" in SIGSEGV Segmentation Fault?" -
    blog.cloudflare.com/why-is-the

  3. Aha, uses syntax, not syntax.
    print *(((long long *) $rsp) + 5)
    works better.
    But I still don't understand what caused that

  4. I generated a SIGSEGV for my program by typing
    print (long long) 40($rsp)
    in

    Ok, I know I expected a near that point, and my code contains
    mov 40(%rsp), %rax
    but the SIGSEGV should be raised a few instructions after this movq, when dereferencing a derivative of this 40(%rsp) and at both points (this gdb print and the normal SIGSEGV point) the stack pointer looks ok.