Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from January 2001
Horsley Tom <Tom.Horsley@ccur.com> 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 do. 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 <nik@tiuk.ti.com> Via, but not speaking for: Texas Instruments Ltd.Thread Previous | Thread Next