Re: bmake inefficiencies

["Simon J. Gerraty" <sjg%juniper.net@localhost>]

Jason Thorpe <thorpej%me.com@localhost> wrote:
> > I chose int (which is what sig_atomic_t is) for portability.
> 
> sig_atomic_t has been around for a fairly long time now, and NOT using
> it has a negative portability impact.

Yes I'll change it - I can deal with making sig_atomic_t available
if missing - that's the whole point of using autoconf for bmake.