Re: [Chicken-users] replace signal with sigaction

[Jörg F . Wittenberger]

On Sep 29 2011, John Cowan wrote:

> Alan Post scripsit:
>
> > It used to be one tested for sigaction in the same way you might
> > test for other features.  I'm not sure if chicken runs on a
> > platform that doesn't have sigaction--do I need to add a feature
> > test for this and preserve the existing capability on platforms
> > without sigaction?
>
> Win32 systems (not including Cygwin) have signal() but not sigaction().
> The only signals on Win32 are SIGABRT, SIGFPE, and SIGSEGV.  SIGILL and
> SIGTERM can be trapped, but they can only happen if you raise them
> yourself with raise().  SIGINT can also be trapped, but that's a bad
> idea, because the handler will be run on a separate Win32 thread.

Too bad.  I forgot.  It's been quite a while that I considered Win32.

Could we live with a conditional compilation here?  (I'm *not* sure.
It complicates thing quite a lot.  Let alone readability of the source.)