Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 14:16:17 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200005051816.OAA05708@indy.delorie.com>
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT delorie DOT com>
To: Laurynas Biveinis <lauras AT softhome DOT net>
CC: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to: <3911BF98.EB8FA972@softhome.net> (message from Laurynas Biveinis
	on Thu, 04 May 2000 21:21:12 +0300)
Subject: Re: SIGIOT for DJGPP?
References:  <3911BF98 DOT EB8FA972 AT softhome DOT net>
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

> Date: Thu, 04 May 2000 21:21:12 +0300
> From: Laurynas Biveinis <lauras AT softhome DOT net>
> 
> Current CVS GCC sources use SIGIOT signal, which is undefined in DJGPP.
> A quick web search indicated that it is a
> 
> SIGIOT 
>      Generated by the PDP-11 "iot" instruction; equivalent to SIGABRT. Default action is to dump
> core.

According to my references, SIGIOT is non-Posix.  So I think GCC
should test if it is defined before using it.

> OK to define it as a synonim to SIGABRT?

I don't think this is a good idea.  And application that sees SIGIOT
could well decide that the underlying functionality, whatever it is,
is supported by the library.  We will risk shooting ourselves in the
foot if we add this.