Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from January 2001
On Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 05:15:35PM +0000, Nick Ing-Simmons wrote:
> Alan Burlison <Alan.Burlison@uk.sun.com> writes:
> >Nick Ing-Simmons wrote:
> >
> >> Apparently not. I cannot at present think what sigsetjmp() gains
> >> us. Do you have an guidelines which say "use sigsetjmp() if your code does X?"
> >
> >In perl terms, I think the only time this would happen is if you did a
> >die inside a signal handler, and expected to go back to an enclosing
> >eval() with the signal handler restored.
>
> I am sure we could do something special round perl signal handlers
> and leave the vast bulk of other eval {} / G_EVAL code using
> normal setjmp().
>
> Unless there is a more obvious/portable mechanism to save/restore the
> mask then something like:
>
> void
> invoke_handler(...)
> {
> code = sigsetjmp(...);
> if (!code)
> {
> perl_call_xxx(...,G_EVAL|G_VOID);
> if (SvTRUE(PL_errsv))
> siglongjmp(...,1);
> }
> }
>
> should do it.
I like that approach.
I'd be nervous of just switching from the sig functions to non-sig globally.
Tim.
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next