Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!think!harvard!seismo!brl-adm!brl-smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn )
Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards
Subject: Re: UNIX Futures
Message-ID: <2413@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Date: Sat, 5-Apr-86 22:58:48 EST
Article-I.D.: brl-smok.2413
Posted: Sat Apr  5 22:58:48 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 9-Apr-86 21:28:51 EST
References: <67@cstvax.UUCP> <2864@amdahl.UUCP> <137@myab.UUCP> <6534@utzoo.UUCP> <1524@wucs.UUCP> <580@ihdev.UUCP>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.ARPA
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL)
Lines: 12

In article <580@ihdev.UUCP> pdg@ihdev.UUCP (55224-P. D. Guthrie) writes:
>I do admit that there needs to be an extra signal which can be sent to a
>process when the size of the window is changed.  This could be handled
>at a graphics library level though.

Any such implementation of SIGWINCH should ensure that the SIG_DFL
action is to ignore the signal, not to terminate the process.

I mention this because I see that AT&T hasn't yet changed the
wording in the SVID to agree with the result of the P1003
discussion about this issue.  SIG_DFL should NOT always mean
"terminate".