Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!romp!auschs!awdprime!testsys.austin.ibm.com!mbrown
From: mbrown@testsys.austin.ibm.com (Mark Brown)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c
Subject: Re: proper semi-portable use of signal()?
Summary: One Argument
Message-ID: <6234@awdprime.UUCP>
Date: 28 Mar 91 22:40:02 GMT
References: <3223@charon.cwi.nl> <15605@smoke.brl.mil> <11568@dog.ee.lbl.gov>
Sender: news@awdprime.UUCP
Organization: IBM AWD, Austin
Lines: 31

torek@elf.ee.lbl.gov (Chris Torek) writes:
|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.

POSIX 1003.1-1990 (the ISO version), Section 3.3.1.3 Signal Actions, Sub
3b - 
"The signal-catching function shall be entered as a C language function
call as follows:	void func ( int SIGNO );
where func is the specified signal-catching function and SIGNO is the signal
number of the signal being delivered."
[This is the OFFICIAL POSIX DOCUMENT for .1, not a draft.]

POSIX 1003.2 Draft 11 (the current draft) says nothing.

POSIX 1003.2a Draft 6 says nothing.

I can't speak for the .4 folks, or the multiprocessing people. I can say that
every effort is made to keep from contradicting the C standard....

-- 
Mark Brown    IBM PSP Austin, TX.     (512) 823-3741   VNET: MBROWN@AUSVMQ
MAIL: mbrown@testsys.austin.ibm.com OR uunet!testsys.austin.ibm.com!mbrown
  The nice thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from!
      DISCLAIMER: Any personal opinions stated here are just that.