Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!mimsy!chris
From: chris@mimsy.UUCP (Chris Torek)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: signals
Message-ID: <7226@mimsy.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 27-Jun-87 03:35:19 EDT
Article-I.D.: mimsy.7226
Posted: Sat Jun 27 03:35:19 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 27-Jun-87 14:08:32 EDT
References: <48300005@hcx1> <1714@munnari.oz> <492@its63b.ed.ac.uk>
Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742
Lines: 16

In article <492@its63b.ed.ac.uk> simon@its63b.ed.ac.uk (Simon Brown) writes:
>One really nasty bug that really needs fixing fast is that the so-called
>"safe signal" mechanism is anything but! If I send 5 SIGINT signals to a
>process, there is no guarentee that that process will receive them all - ok,
>it will certainly receive at least one, but whether it receives 2,3,4 or 5
>is pretty much left to chance!

This is exactly analagous to hardware interrupts, or at least, to those
on PDP-11s and Vaxen.  The software signal mechanism is quite obviously
modelled upon these, even to the extent of having separate interrupt
stacks.

(Personally, I think I would prefer queued signals.)
-- 
In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci Dept (+1 301 454 7690)
Domain:	chris@mimsy.umd.edu	Path:	seismo!mimsy!chris