safe signals (was Re: perl IS an event loop (was Re: Speaking of signals...))

[Nicholas Clark]

On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 01:06:51PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 04:01 PM 1/6/01 +0000, Simon Cozens wrote:

> >Gosh, really? I thought it was so significant that it didn't go in core.
> >If it was that small, why *didn't* it go in core?
> 
> Because a guaranteed 3-5% slowdown in the interpreter, regardless of 
> whether you use signals or not (and the vast majority of perl code that 
> runs doesn't) *is* significant. The cost just wasn't worth the benefit.

Hmm. No-one produced a patch with 2 loops, 1 for normal use, and 1 when
%SIG has handlers other than default or ignore assigned to it.
Would that be an acceptable perl5 compromise?

[follow up to p5p please]

Nicholas Clark