Article View: comp.std.c
Article #2632Re: proper semi-portable use of signal()?
From: Doug Gwyn
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 1991 22:55
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 1991 22:55
13 lines
1079 bytes
1079 bytes
In article <11568@dog.ee.lbl.gov> torek@elf.ee.lbl.gov (Chris Torek) writes: >The word on the streets is that current POSIX drafts *do* require more >than one argument. Then SC22 or whatever the appropriate coordinating agency is should block the conflicting standard. >It was probably a mistake for ANSI X3.159-1989 and POSIX to attempt >to share the name `signal' and the type `signal handler' at all. POSIX.1 deliberately relegated signal() to a different category from sigvec(). I don't much care how sigvec() handlers are specified, but signal() handlers MUST conform to the previously-decided interface.
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<15620@smoke.brl.mil>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!mcnc!uvaarpa!haven!adm!smoke!gwynReferences:
<3223@charon.cwi.nl> <15605@smoke.brl.mil> <11568@dog.ee.lbl.gov>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!mcnc!uvaarpa!haven!adm!smoke!gwyn From: gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn) Newsgroups: comp.std.c Subject: Re: proper semi-portable use of signal()? Message-ID: <15620@smoke.brl.mil> Date: 28 Mar 91 22:55:49 GMT References: <3223@charon.cwi.nl> <15605@smoke.brl.mil> <11568@dog.ee.lbl.gov> Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, APG, MD. Lines: 13