Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 20:19:49 +0200
From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT elta DOT co DOT il>
Sender: halo1 AT zahav DOT net DOT il
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Message-Id: <8011-Sun16Mar2003201949+0200-eliz@elta.co.il>
X-Mailer: emacs 21.3.50 (via feedmail 8 I) and Blat ver 1.8.9
In-reply-to: <3E713255.B2A42BDB@yahoo.com> (message from CBFalconer on Thu, 13
	Mar 2003 20:37:25 -0500)
Subject: Re: nmalloc revisited
References:  <3E713255 DOT B2A42BDB AT yahoo DOT com>
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, 13 Mar 2003 20:37:25 -0500
> From: CBFalconer <cbfalconer AT yahoo DOT com>
> 
> I have just noticed a C99 restriction against raising signals
> within the library.  nmalloc does raise SIGABRT in several cases,
> where the memory arena has become fouled.  This is concentrated in
> the routine badcallabort(), which is called from various places.
> 
> Is this worth worrying about

I think you could simply call `abort()' instead of raising SIGABRT.
One or two core library functions already do that.

Would that be okay?  If not, please tell why not.