Re: POSIX signal handling versus traditional signal handling
From: Villy Kruse (vek_at_station02.ohout.pharmapartners.nl)
Date: 08/25/05
- Next message: CBFalconer: "Re: Jargons of Info Tech industry"
- Previous message: leonard: "ncurses backspace"
- In reply to: Nils Weller: "Re: POSIX signal handling versus traditional signal handling"
- Next in thread: Maxim Yegorushkin: "Re: POSIX signal handling versus traditional signal handling"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: 25 Aug 2005 07:22:52 GMT
On 24 Aug 2005 16:27:51 GMT,
Nils Weller <me@privacy.net> wrote:
> On 2005-08-24, Ulrich Hobelmann <u.hobelmann@web.de> wrote:
>> usenet@sta.samsung.com wrote:
>> AFAIK, BSD and POSIX signals (i.e. everything except ooold Unix V7 or
>> something) are reliable, so even if you process receives two same
>
> Note that in System V, signal() was never fixed, so you still have to
> use sigset() (introduced in SVR3), sigaction() or bsd_signal() instead
> to get reliable signals
SysV sigset() differs from BSD signal() in whether or not restartable
syscalls are actualy restarted when the signal handler terminates.
Villy
- Next message: CBFalconer: "Re: Jargons of Info Tech industry"
- Previous message: leonard: "ncurses backspace"
- In reply to: Nils Weller: "Re: POSIX signal handling versus traditional signal handling"
- Next in thread: Maxim Yegorushkin: "Re: POSIX signal handling versus traditional signal handling"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|