davecb@yunexus.UUCP (David Collier-Brown) (06/28/89)
gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) writes: | It hasn't been necessary to perform periodic sync()s to maintain the | integrity of disk structures for many years now (in the System V branch | of the UNIX family tree, at least, and I've heard similar claims for | some 4BSD variants). To change the subject slightly, have the late releases of Sys V added to (or changed) the signal semantics to allow one to reliably catch repeated signals. I remember from days of yore that various implementations allowed signal(1) to survive back-to-back dels, but I don't recollect discussion of improvements in the standard. --dave (I'm showing may age again) c-b -- David Collier-Brown, | davecb@yunexus, ...!yunexus!davecb or 72 Abitibi Ave., | {toronto area...}lethe!dave Willowdale, Ontario, | Joyce C-B: CANADA. 223-8968 | He's so smart he's dumb.
gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) (07/02/89)
In article <2471@yunexus.UUCP> davecb@yunexus.UUCP (David Collier-Brown) writes: > To change the subject slightly, have the late releases of Sys V >added to (or changed) the signal semantics to allow one to reliably >catch repeated signals. Yes, SVR3.0 introduced what were essentially 4.1BSD "reliable signals". I think SVR4.0 is supposed to provide POSIX (IEEE 1003.1) signal support.