From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Jul 19 8:58: 7 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from flood.ping.uio.no (flood.ping.uio.no [129.240.78.31]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C660E151D5 for ; Mon, 19 Jul 1999 08:58:04 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from des@flood.ping.uio.no) Received: (from des@localhost) by flood.ping.uio.no (8.9.3/8.9.1) id RAA82869; Mon, 19 Jul 1999 17:57:10 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from des) To: Alfred Perlstein Cc: Dag-Erling Smorgrav , hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Determining the return address References: From: Dag-Erling Smorgrav Date: 19 Jul 1999 17:57:09 +0200 In-Reply-To: Alfred Perlstein's message of "Mon, 19 Jul 1999 11:46:20 -0400 (EDT)" Message-ID: Lines: 18 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.5/Emacs 19.34 Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Alfred Perlstein writes: > erm, can't you point multiple signal handler entries to the same > routine? can't you also make it so that signals aren't defered > or blocked while another handler is executing so you may actually > re-enter the handler before it's complete. I use good ol' signal() rather than sigaction(), so no, signals can't interrupt one another's handlers. > specifically how you say you increment it, then decrement it, > if you have multiple handlers where one can interupt another > you can have the counter get jumbled. Not if increment / decrement is atomic. DES -- Dag-Erling Smorgrav - des@flood.ping.uio.no To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message