Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!mcnc!uvaarpa!haven!adm!smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c
Subject: Re: proper semi-portable use of signal()?
Message-ID: <15620@smoke.brl.mil>
Date: 28 Mar 91 22:55:49 GMT
References: <3223@charon.cwi.nl> <15605@smoke.brl.mil> <11568@dog.ee.lbl.gov>
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, APG, MD.
Lines: 13

In article <11568@dog.ee.lbl.gov> torek@elf.ee.lbl.gov (Chris Torek) writes:
>The word on the streets is that current POSIX drafts *do* require more
>than one argument.

Then SC22 or whatever the appropriate coordinating agency is
should block the conflicting standard.

>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.

POSIX.1 deliberately relegated signal() to a different category from
sigvec().  I don't much care how sigvec() handlers are specified, but
signal() handlers MUST conform to the previously-decided interface.