Re: [MiNT] SIGPWR

[Michael Schwingen <rincewind@discworld.dascon.de>]

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.

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.

cu
Michael
-- 
Michael Schwingen, Ahornstrasse 36, 52074 Aachen