Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 12:29:39 +0200 From: Giorgos Keramidas <charon@hades.hell.gr> To: Laurence Berland <stuyman@confusion.net> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Giving a sighandler more information Message-ID: <20000113122939.B1605@hades.hell.gr> In-Reply-To: <387D2B6C.4E2E42C1@confusion.net> References: <200001122054.VAA52051@dorifer.heim3.tu-clausthal.de> <387D2B6C.4E2E42C1@confusion.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Jan 12, 2000 at 08:33:32PM -0500, Laurence Berland wrote:
>
> Followup question: is a sig_atomic_t appropriate to hold the value of
> a FILE * ?
You can always check on your machine with sizeof(). But I think that
in most machines this is true. I used the following sample program to
check on my box and it shows that (FILE *) and sig_atomic_t have
exactly the same size.
% cat hello.c
#include <stdio.h>
#include <signal.h>
int main (void)
{
printf("%d %d\n", sizeof(FILE *), sizeof(sig_atomic_t));
return 0;
}
% cc hello.c
% ./a.out
4 4
Ciao.
--
Giorgos Keramidas, < keramida @ ceid . upatras . gr >
"What we have to learn to do, we learn by doing." [Aristotle]
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000113122939.B1605>