From: Jens Maurer (Jens.Maurer_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-11-18 13:17:05
Mattias Flodin wrote:
> Speaking of atomic access, I've been thinking about the sig_atomic_t type
> discussed earlier. Wouldn't it be useful with an portable atomic-access
> integer type? In systems where sig_atomic_t exists as an atomic type, this
> could be simply a typedef.
I'm against overloading the semantics of sig_atomic_t. The type
sig_atomic_t serves a specific purpose: Communications between signal
handlers and the "main" program. We should not put threading semantics
on top of it.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk