Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!uwm.edu!linac!att!ucbvax!dog.ee.lbl.gov!elf.ee.lbl.gov!torek
From: torek@elf.ee.lbl.gov (Chris Torek)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c
Subject: Re: proper semi-portable use of signal()?
Message-ID: <11568@dog.ee.lbl.gov>
Date: 28 Mar 91 18:13:21 GMT
References: <3223@charon.cwi.nl> <15605@smoke.brl.mil>
Reply-To: torek@elf.ee.lbl.gov (Chris Torek)
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley
Lines: 15
X-Local-Date: Thu, 28 Mar 91 10:13:21 PST

In article <15605@smoke.brl.mil> gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn) writes:
>The signal handler function does NOT have a variable argument list,
>but always receives precisely one argument of type int.  The ,... is
>a bogus attempt to accommodate 4.2BSD-style signal handers.  If some
>recent modification has been made to POSIX.1 that requires this, it
>is WRONG and in general incompatible with the C standard.

The word on the streets is that current POSIX drafts *do* require more
than one argument.

It was probably a mistake for ANSI X3.159-1989 and POSIX to attempt
to share the name `signal' and the type `signal handler' at all.
-- 
In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Lawrence Berkeley Lab CSE/EE (+1 415 486 5427)
Berkeley, CA		Domain:	torek@ee.lbl.gov