Re: Interesting scheduling times

Albert D. Cahalan (acahalan@cs.uml.edu)
Sun, 20 Sep 1998 00:16:41 -0400 (EDT)


>> I don't trust him either. Among other things, he changed signal()
>> behavior. Gee, thanks for breaking all the apps with SysV expectations.
>
> Any program that counts on the behavior of signal() in this manner
> is broken and should itself be patched to use sigaction or to be
> more robust in any of several ways.

No. The behavior was well-defined on Linux until Drepper broke it.

> In my opinion, the BSD behavior is far more useful than the
> sysv behavior, and glibc has this particular issue right.

The BSD behavior is totally useless, since it can not be assumed.
Prior to the screw-up, signal() was useful. Old code worked, and
now it doesn't. If BSD jumped off a cliff, would you jump too?

Drepper claims that kernel developers will randomly break stuff
by changing the kernel interface in incompatible ways. Look at
how little respect he has for backwards compatibility. He is being
a hypocrite. Since his FPU idiocy slows down Linux, it would be
best to start a patch collection for proper Linux support.

(I told everyone these problems would happen...)

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/