Date: Sat, 06 Apr 1996 00:06:59 -0800 From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Any clues as to why this fails? Message-ID: <1030.828778019@time.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 06 Apr 1996 17:51:48 %2B1000." <199604060751.RAA16135@godzilla.zeta.org.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> >> - printf() gives undefined behaviour in signal handlers. > > >I know that. I just wanted to see if the handler was being called at > > Don't show bad examples. Geeze, it was a _debugging_ statement - you want I should have opened a logfile, written a string to it and closed it just to make sure none of the impressionable 14-year-olds on this list were irrepairably damaged by my horrible example? Next thing you know we'll be discussing whether or not ``anal-retentive'' should properly be spelled with a hyphen or not! :-) If you want to get on a more useful hobby horse I suggest going after all the places marked with `#ifdef notdef' or `XXX' in our kernel sources, not one lousy throw-away printf() in a signal handler.. :-) > No. The next release isn't close, and some people will keep running > 1.1.5... I'm not sure I can parse this. The next release of 2.1.x you mean? What does that have to do with people running 1.1.5? Also, don't forget the SNAP releases - there is considerable activity in 2.2, and Justin just requested that I roll another SNAP for his 78xx buddies. As soon as I finish this last round of sysinstall hacks, I'm going to do exactly that, so presuming that the next "release" is not imminent sort of depends on how you define the term, and there's been considerable interest in our SNAPs (which is good, since we're getting a lot more 2.2 testing than we would otherwise). Jordan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1030.828778019>