Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!uwm.edu!linac!att!pacbell.com!decwrl!pa.dec.com!jrdzzz.jrd.dec.com!tkou02.enet.dec.com!jit345!diamond From: diamond@jit345.swstokyo.dec.com (Norman Diamond) Newsgroups: comp.std.c Subject: Re: proper semi-portable use of signal()? Message-ID: <1991Mar29.065157.609@tkou02.enet.dec.com> Date: 29 Mar 91 06:51:57 GMT References: <3223@charon.cwi.nl> <1991Mar27.014048.18198@tkou02.enet.dec.com> <3228@charon.cwi.nl> Sender: usenet@tkou02.enet.dec.com (USENET News System) Reply-To: diamond@jit345.enet@tkou02.enet.dec.com (Norman Diamond) Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation Japan , Tokyo Lines: 22 In article <3228@charon.cwi.nl> guido@cwi.nl (Guido van Rossum) writes: >Therefore I believe my declaration is compatible with the standard, It was; though the combination of your declaration with the contents of your (which was not provided by your processor, gcc) yielded an invalid program. >while the in question (provided by SGI) is not. Essentially true. The that was provided to you by SGI cannot really be part of a standard-conforming implementation. (Wierd hacks could be made to the compiler in order to get around this, but it's not worth worrying about.) >Any other opinions? If you want a standard-conforming processor, you should install a complete standard-conforming processor, not just half of one. -- Norman Diamond diamond@tkov50.enet.dec.com If this were the company's opinion, I wouldn't be allowed to post it.