Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| John Levon wrote:
>>> Or should the code in child_handler be truly trivial:
>> Yes.
>
| John, I take it that you're (almost) happy with the existing signal
| handling code in error_handler below. To my mind it needs only a
| handling_error flag to ensure that it handles multiple signals
| safely. (The SIGPIPE should be removed if it isn't an error.)
>
| Thoughts?
| Angus
>
| static void error_handler(int err_sig)
| {
| + static sig_atomic_t handling_error = false;
| + if (handling_error)
| + return;
| + handling_error = true;
Hmm... why do you think this is needed?
--
Lgb
