From:	"Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer" <k3040e4 AT wildsau DOT idv-edu DOT uni-linz DOT ac DOT at>
Message-Id:	<199801160702.IAA22842@wildsau.idv.uni-linz.ac.at>
Subject:	Re: Request for comments: SIGQUIT in DJGPP v2.02
To:	dj AT delorie DOT com (DJ Delorie)
Date:	Fri, 16 Jan 1998 08:02:33 +0100 (MET)
Cc:	eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il, djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-Reply-To:	<199801131321.IAA19548@delorie.com> from "DJ Delorie" at Jan 13, 98 08:21:27 am
Return-Read-To:	k3040e4 AT wildsau DOT idv DOT uni-linz DOT ac DOT at
MIME-Version:	1.0

> > I thought about this some more, and there are two aspects that still
> > bother me.
> 
> I'm beginning to think that supporting SIGQUIT just isn't worth it.

I'm also more than a bit sceptic about the SIGQUIT extension.
Many programs (like Allegro) currently install SIGQUIT handlers
just to clean up at a possible crash.

I strongly vote for an explicit `__djgpp_enable_sigquit()'.

[ Is SIGQUIT really that important ? - just to describe my ignorance ;-),
  though running Linux for more than 3 years I even don't know where
  this key is located on my German keyboard ]

- Raw text -