Boost logo

Boost :

From: Greg Colvin (gcolvin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-09-01 18:39:36

From: Valentin Bonnard <Bonnard.V_at_[hidden]>
> ...
> (BTW, I haven't been able to find specific guaranties about
> sig_atomic_t in the C++ standard; are they hidden in the C
> standard ? In particular, is sig_atomic_t()++ guarantied
> to be atomic ?

In 1.9 I find:

   When the processing of the abstract machine is interrupted
   by receipt of a signal, the values of objects with type
   other than volatile sig_atomic_t are unspecified, and the
   value of any object not of volatile sig_atomic_t that is
   modified by the handler becomes undefined.

Make of it what you will, but it doesn't promise very much.

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at