[ On Tue, April 23, 1996 at 09:32:49 (+0100), Philip Hazel wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: danger
>
> This code is exactly the same logic as is used in smail, so if it is
> bad, there's a long-standing problem in smail too! Would anybody else on
> the list care to comment?
I can say that smail-3 up to 3.1.29.13 (I'v not been able to test 3.1.92
in the appropriate environment yet), leaves lots of <defunct> processes
lying about on busy SunOS-4 systems when compiled in the /usr/5bin
environment (and thus will likely do the same on any SysV machine).
The existing smail code is not properly portable, though it gets by
(i.e. compiles and more or less runs) much to my surprise in an
amazingly large number of environments.
You might take a look through Richard Stevens books (either Advanced
Programming In The UNIX Environment or UNIX Network Programming) and
seeing how he suggests making signal handling portable. The GNU
autoconf stuff, when used properly, will properly configure well written
signal handling code on most any existing system.
--
Greg A. Woods
+1 416 443-1734 VE3TCP robohack!woods
Planix, Inc. <woods@???>; Secrets of the Weird <woods@???>
