On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 10:44:42AM -0400, John Cowan wrote: > Alan Post scripsit: > > > It used to be one tested for sigaction in the same way you might > > test for other features. I'm not sure if chicken runs on a > > platform that doesn't have sigaction--do I need to add a feature > > test for this and preserve the existing capability on platforms > > without sigaction? > > Win32 systems (not including Cygwin) have signal() but not sigaction(). > The only signals on Win32 are SIGABRT, SIGFPE, and SIGSEGV. SIGILL and > SIGTERM can be trapped, but they can only happen if you raise them > yourself with raise(). SIGINT can also be trapped, but that's a bad > idea, because the handler will be run on a separate Win32 thread. > > All of our other hosts implement sigaction(). >
I'm very happy you had this information to hand--I had not quite remembered how the signal() interface survived C ANSI-fication and you just laid it out for me. Does the ANSI C behavior specify that a signal must be re-registered after it is called? Is it more reliable for me to follow the ANSI C standard or the w32 documentation on this interface? If w32, where do I find that? I will submit a new patch that includes a feature test so this code will work on w32. .i.ioki'edo mu'o mi'e .alyn. -- .i ma'a lo bradi cu penmi gi'e du _______________________________________________ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users