From: Greg Colvin (gcolvin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-09-01 18:39:36
From: Valentin Bonnard <Bonnard.V_at_[hidden]>
> ...
> (BTW, I haven't been able to find specific guaranties about
> sig_atomic_t in the C++ standard; are they hidden in the C
> standard ? In particular, is sig_atomic_t()++ guarantied
> to be atomic ?
In 1.9 I find:
When the processing of the abstract machine is interrupted
by receipt of a signal, the values of objects with type
other than volatile sig_atomic_t are unspecified, and the
value of any object not of volatile sig_atomic_t that is
modified by the handler becomes undefined.
Make of it what you will, but it doesn't promise very much.