Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!batcomputer!caen!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!aplcen!boingo.med.jhu.edu!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: <15639@smoke.brl.mil>
Date: 30 Mar 91 14:37:14 GMT
References: <1991Mar27.014048.18198@tkou02.enet.dec.com> <3228@charon.cwi.nl> <1991Mar29.065157.609@tkou02.enet.dec.com>
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, APG, MD.
Lines: 9

In article <1991Mar29.065157.609@tkou02.enet.dec.com> diamond@jit345.enet@tkou02.enet.dec.com (Norman Diamond) writes:
>The <signal.h> that was provided to you by SGI
>cannot really be part of a standard-conforming implementation.

Yes, I in fact received e-mail from a compiler implementor at SGI
promising that this would be fixed in a forthcoming release of a
standard-conforming implementation.  (SGI's current release fails
to conform fully to the C standard in several ways, presumably
all to be fixed in the aforementioned forthcoming release.)