Xref: utzoo comp.lang.c:32758 comp.unix.misc:290 Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!world!decwrl!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!lavaca.uh.edu!menudo.uh.edu!sugar!ficc!peter From: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c,comp.unix.misc Subject: Re: Ambiguity in definition of setjmp/longjmp makes them much less useful Message-ID: Date: 9 Oct 90 23:25:08 GMT References: <891@usage.csd.unsw.oz.au> <:_A6T46@xds13.ferranti.com> <13914:Oct920:48:3290@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> Reply-To: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Followup-To: comp.unix.misc Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Lines: 18 > > Of course, you need to do this in BSD, but BSD is buggier than a dog pound. > Say what? I've written large BSD applications that don't do anything > inside signal handlers other than set flags. Where's this ``need'' you > talk about? To use an alarm to break a read. In system V you can do that just by setting a flag. In BSD you have to longjmp out. Now you'll tell me to use sockets. I'm allergic to objects outside the UNIX filesystem name space. > And if you're going to insist that BSD is buggier than SysV, > how about some proof? I didn't say that. I said BSD is buggier than a dog pound. That doesn't imply that System V *isn't*. I just tend to trust System V more because it shows fewer signs of feeping creaturism. Fewer places for bugs to hide. In retrospect the awful tardiness of AT&T in getting streams into someplace you can do something useful with them might be a blessing. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' +1 713 274 5180. 'U` peter@ferranti.com