From owner-freebsd-hackers  Tue Nov  7 22:20:30 1995
Return-Path: owner-hackers
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) id WAA24417
          for hackers-outgoing; Tue, 7 Nov 1995 22:20:30 -0800
Received: from time.cdrom.com (time.cdrom.com [192.216.222.226])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id WAA24412
          for <hackers@FreeBSD.org>; Tue, 7 Nov 1995 22:20:26 -0800
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by time.cdrom.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id WAA03350; Tue, 7 Nov 1995 22:19:51 -0800
To: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org>
cc: hackers@FreeBSD.org, jehamby@lightside.com, x_cbug@netscape.com
Subject: Re: Timing bug with Netscape 2.0b2 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 07 Nov 1995 22:53:27 MST."
             <199511080553.WAA19389@phaeton.artisoft.com> 
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 1995 22:19:51 -0800
Message-ID: <3348.815811591@time.cdrom.com>
From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>
Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> Look at the state of system call restart after SIGALRM on setitimer()
> for BSDI vs. FreeBSD in BSDI compatability mode.

If they're using setitimer() instead of a timeout to select(), that'd
be unbelievably mutant.  What makes you think they're doing it that
way?  Signal handling in X applications is something to be avoided,
not embraced.  I've done "blinking" just fine with the supplied
(non-signal using) timers in other applications.

[Note: We should probably take x_cbug out of the Cc line if this is
 going to turn into a debate! :)]

					Jordan