develooper Front page | perl.perl5.porters | Postings from January 2001

RE: Does perl really need to use sigsetjmp? (18% performance hit)

Thread Previous | Thread Next
Nick Ing-Simmons
January 9, 2001 09:24
RE: Does perl really need to use sigsetjmp? (18% performance hit)
Message ID:
Horsley Tom <> writes:
>> There is so much brokenness and platform-dependent behaviour in the area
>> of perl signal handling that I don't think a switch from sigsetjmp to
>> setjmp is going to make any discernable difference.
>That's the best reason I've seen so far :-).
>It also occurs to me that one of the safe signal proposals
>floating around was to make the C-level signal handler
>just set a flag and have the Perl-level handler called
>later. If that ever happened there would certainly be no
>reason to use sigsetjmp because no perl code would ever
>actually run across a signal handler border.

That is certainly what Tk's and Event's "safe" signal handlers

Can those that fear breakage cook up tests that prove things
work the way they expect (we could start with program from the 
5.002 vintage archive Alan found).

If it is _just_ die-out-of-signal handler we must be able to 
fake _something_.

Nick Ing-Simmons <>
Via, but not speaking for: Texas Instruments Ltd.

Thread Previous | Thread Next Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at | Group listing | About