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 acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk