Daniel Veillard wrote:
On Mon, Mar 26, 2007 at 04:22:33PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> Daniel Veillard wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 26, 2007 at 03:39:51PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>>> I'm not sure if this is the right way to solve this, but it is a way.
>> we should test the return value to check for an error there, the
>> unfortunate thing is that since we are in a signal handler there isn't
>> much we can do, I suggest to increment a global variable (which could
>> for example be checked if we hit that problem by some other code in
>> the main loop).
>> Other ideas ?
> How about this patch. It implements your suggestion.
yup, better than I would have done myself (didn't knew there was
a specific type sig_atomic_t for atomic access...).
Committed to CVS.
Rich.
--
Emerging Technologies, Red Hat
http://et.redhat.com/~rjones/
64 Baker Street, London, W1U 7DF Mobile: +44 7866 314 421
"[Negative numbers] darken the very whole doctrines of the equations
and make dark of the things which are in their nature excessively
obvious and simple" (Francis Maseres FRS, mathematician, 1759)