Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site hcrvx2.UUCP
Path: utzoo!hcradm!hcrvx2!khasin
From: khasin@hcrvx2.UUCP (Khasin Teow)
Newsgroups: net.unix
Subject: Re: alarm questions
Message-ID: <2361@hcrvx2.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 28-Jul-86 09:09:19 EDT
Article-I.D.: hcrvx2.2361
Posted: Mon Jul 28 09:09:19 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 29-Jul-86 01:00:55 EDT
References: <9250003@acf4.UUCP>
Reply-To: khasin@hcrvx2.UUCP (Khasin Teow)
Organization: Human Computing Resources, Toronto
Lines: 15
Keywords: SIGALRM
Summary: 

In article <9250003@acf4.UUCP> tihor@acf4.UUCP (Stephen Tihor) writes:
>A novice question I am afraid.  Under BSD 4.2 a friend wrote a little 
>infinite sleep loop with a signal handler that displays the signal number.
>His testing with kill implies that the ALARM signal does interupt the
>sleep but doesn't invoke the handler.  But he swears up and down that he set
>the handler for that (He looped to set all the handlers.)


If my assumption is correct in that the "infinite sleep loop"
involves the sleep(3) call, then his SIGALRM handler will not be invoked
when SIGALRM is received since that handler has already been
replaced by the SIGALRM handler in the sleep subroutine.
At least this is true on System V.2.

Kha Sin TEOW @ HCR