Date:	Sun, 18 Jan 1998 11:53:08 +0200 (IST)
From:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
To:	Nate Eldredge <eldredge AT ap DOT net>
cc:	Paul Derbyshire <ao950 AT FreeNet DOT Carleton DOT CA>, djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: Writing a SIGINT handler.
In-Reply-To:	<199801160420.UAA09731@adit.ap.net>
Message-ID:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.980118115250.18602J-100000@is>
MIME-Version:	1.0

On Thu, 15 Jan 1998, Nate Eldredge wrote:

> >Of course, usually you shouldn't have a reason to install a handler
> >that is meant to catch real exceptions which don't originate from
> >something your program did.
> Sorry, I'm confused by the implications of this. What might cause such an
> event, and how would my program be able to tell which was the actual cause?
> It seems to me that such events could only be caused by a buggy DPMI host,
> which isn't my fault anyway.

Yes, that is exactly what I meant to say.  So you are not confused.

In other words, for most practical purposes, a signal handler doesn't
have to be locked.

> I sincerely hope you aren't saying that signal handlers are not
> safe.

No, I wasn't saying that.

- Raw text -