Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!ames!lll-winken!gauss.llnl.gov!casey
From: casey@gauss.llnl.gov (Casey Leedom)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x
Subject: Re: X & signals
Keywords: xwindows signals
Message-ID: <50604@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV>
Date: 2 Mar 90 02:44:58 GMT
References: <1154@sdrc.UUCP> <132200@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> <12058@venera.isi.edu>
Sender: usenet@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV
Reply-To: casey@gauss.llnl.gov (Casey Leedom)
Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Lines: 23

| From: raveling@isi.edu (Paul Raveling)
| 
| The real problem is that UNIX signals are utterly inadequate and
| inappropriate.
| 
| For the record, it took me about 2 orders of magnitude too much
| development time to get the signaling in the Img Software Set's "exhibit"
| program to work without race condition problems.  This should have been
| trivial.

  Which version of UNIX are you talking about?  Even System V has
reliable signals these days (albeit 4.1BSD signals).  If you're having
race condition problems on any modern UNIX, they're in your code, not the
OS.

  I will admit that the 4.1BSD signal facility found in System V is
uglier than mud and extremely difficult to use for complex interaction
with multiple signals.  The signal facility that was introduced with
4.2BSD is *MUCH* nicer.  I will never understand why AT&T went with the
4.1BSD signal facility when they finally decided to put reliable signals
into System V.  I can only guess severe and total brain damage.

Casey