Subject: Re: sig_atomic_t
To: Chris G Demetriou <Chris_G_Demetriou@LAGAVULIN.PDL.CS.CMU.EDU>
From: J.T. Conklin <>
List: tech-userlevel
Date: 01/10/1995 10:48:58
> i'd favor the former, as well.  sig_atomic_t isn't necessarily an
> int... (in fact, in general, it seems that it should be a "long", at
> least on the present and near-future systems that we will be
> supporting).


Can a signal be raised between the time a [34]86 SX processor writes
the first and second halves of a 32 bit int?  If so, sig_atomic_t
would have to be a "short".