This is the abstract question:
If the software do SEGV, it's a bug or not?
Wiki says:
Other example:
When user using non-existing option in console (or executing program in "different" way), what's the correct behavior:
or:
Both behaviors are correct (depends of company policy, or the second is a BUG?).
If it's a BUG, where it's defined that's the BUG?
What if SEGV could cause unexpected behavior by accessing invalid memory and could impact on system stability?
Is SEGV signal is for informing user that something is wrong, or informing programmer to fix it about the critical issue, which must be fixed?
If it's not a bug, that means all software can just disappearing or exiting with SEGV, and nobody/never will fix it, because nobody care about end users experience?
This is the standard approach of POSIX? Or definitely software BUG?
Expecting simple answer
If the software do SEGV, it's a bug or not?
Wiki says:
SIGSEGV is the signal sent to a process when it makes an invalid memory reference, or segmentation fault.
Other example:
When user using non-existing option in console (or executing program in "different" way), what's the correct behavior:
Code:
> ping -b
ping: illegal option -- b
usage: ping [-AaDdfnoQqRrv]
Code:
> ping -b
Segmentation fault
If it's a BUG, where it's defined that's the BUG?
What if SEGV could cause unexpected behavior by accessing invalid memory and could impact on system stability?
Is SEGV signal is for informing user that something is wrong, or informing programmer to fix it about the critical issue, which must be fixed?
If it's not a bug, that means all software can just disappearing or exiting with SEGV, and nobody/never will fix it, because nobody care about end users experience?
This is the standard approach of POSIX? Or definitely software BUG?
Expecting simple answer