Re: Interesting scheduling times

David Holland (dholland@cs.toronto.edu)
Sun, 20 Sep 1998 00:26:14 -0400

> >> 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.

Any program that counts on the behavior of signal() in this manner is
broken. What part of that isn't clear? Whether it was always this way
on Linux (and I'm not as certain of that as you are) is completely
irrelevant.

> > 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.

It can be checked for in a configure script. The NetKit configure
scripts, which are hardly amazingly sophisticated, managed this
without any trouble.

> [useless flamage deleted]

This is off-topic on the kernel list anyway.

-- 
   - David A. Holland             | (please continue to send non-list mail to
     dholland@cs.utoronto.ca      | dholland@hcs.harvard.edu. yes, I moved.)


     Any netkit mail should be sent to netbug@ftp.uk.linux.org, not me.


-
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/