Xref: utzoo comp.unix.misc:288 alt.religion.computers:1893 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!yale!cmcl2!kramden.acf.nyu.edu!brnstnd From: brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) Newsgroups: comp.unix.misc,alt.religion.computers Subject: Re: Ambiguity in definition of setjmp/longjmp makes them much less useful Message-ID: <18744:Oct1004:11:5190@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> Date: 10 Oct 90 04:11:51 GMT References: <:_A6T46@xds13.ferranti.com> <13914:Oct920:48:3290@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> Organization: IR Lines: 20 In article peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes: > > 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. Oh... Catch up to 4.3, where this has been fixed (in fact giving the programmer the choice of what to do). You're right, BSD 4.2 can be quite annoying at times. > > 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. Exactly. And vague statements like ``System V shows fewer signs of feeping creaturism'' don't convince anyone that BSD is buggier than System V. ---Dan