Date: 19 Jul 1999 17:57:09 +0200 From: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@flood.ping.uio.no> To: Alfred Perlstein <bright@rush.net> Cc: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@flood.ping.uio.no>, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Determining the return address Message-ID: <xzp4sj0my3u.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no> In-Reply-To: Alfred Perlstein's message of "Mon, 19 Jul 1999 11:46:20 -0400 (EDT)" References: <Pine.BSF.3.96.990719114321.27774A-100000@cygnus.rush.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Alfred Perlstein <bright@rush.net> writes: > erm, can't you point multiple signal handler entries to the same > routine? can't you also make it so that signals aren't defered > or blocked while another handler is executing so you may actually > re-enter the handler before it's complete. I use good ol' signal() rather than sigaction(), so no, signals can't interrupt one another's handlers. > specifically how you say you increment it, then decrement it, > if you have multiple handlers where one can interupt another > you can have the counter get jumbled. Not if increment / decrement is atomic. DES -- Dag-Erling Smorgrav - des@flood.ping.uio.no To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?xzp4sj0my3u.fsf>