Re: [MiNT] SIGPWR

[Guido Flohr <gufl0000@stud.uni-sb.de>]

Hi,

On Tue, Oct 26, 1999 at 07:24:52PM +0200, Michael Schwingen wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 25, 1999 at 06:41:04PM +0200, Guido Flohr wrote:
> > 
> > Anyway, with regard to signals, MiNT is already very standard, no need to
> > change IMHO.  SIGSTKFLT would be nice but it probably never gets raised
> > since there is no detection of a stack overflow.
> 
> This could work when memory protection is active, so it might be a good idea
> to have at least a signal number for that case.

But I would still say that SIGSYS is unnecessary.

> Is it right that SIGPWR is only sent from a UPS daemon to init, and never to
> other processes?
> 
> In that case, a different mechanism micht ge used (eg. another signal that
> is unused in init). Using up a signal for this purpose seems a bit wasteful.

But the existing software seemingly uses SIGPWR for that purpose. If we
have that signal then we don't have to rewrite that stuff.  And other
signals already have a different meaning for init.

Ciao

Guido
-- 
http://stud.uni-sb.de/~gufl0000/
mailto:gufl0000@stud.uni-sb.de