Re^10: Perl Alarm Not Working

So you are declaring all the millions of line of pre-5.8 Perl that used signals, and all the billions of lines of C that still use "unsafe" signal handling, "definitely not wise.

Which according to your logic means that the authors of Perl::Unsafe::Signals, along with those p5pers that left the PERL_SIGNALS=unsafe workaround in place should be condemned for their actions?

Or maybe there is another reason for your continued stance.

Comment on Re^10: Perl Alarm Not Working Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^11: Perl Alarm Not Working by ikegami (Patriarch) on Dec 22, 2010 at 16:13 UTC
So you are declaring all the millions of line of pre-5.8 Perl that used signals [...] not wise No. Where did you get the idea that it was possible to turn off safe signals pre 5.8? I can't speak as to how wise it is to do something impossible. So you are declaring [...] all the billions of lines of C that still use "unsafe" signal handling, "definitely not wise. No. What makes you say that all C code uses unsafe signal handling? The Perl library pre 5.8 wasn't signal-safe, but that doesn't mean that C code in general can't be made signal-safe. Perl 5.8(.?) is an example of such a feat being accomplished.	[reply]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^11: Perl Alarm Not Working
by ikegami (Patriarch) on Dec 22, 2010 at 16:13 UTC

So you are declaring all the millions of line of pre-5.8 Perl that used signals [...] not wise

No. Where did you get the idea that it was possible to turn off safe signals pre 5.8? I can't speak as to how wise it is to do something impossible.

So you are declaring [...] all the billions of lines of C that still use "unsafe" signal handling, "definitely not wise.

No. What makes you say that all C code uses unsafe signal handling? The Perl library pre 5.8 wasn't signal-safe, but that doesn't mean that C code in general can't be made signal-safe. Perl 5.8(.?) is an example of such a feat being accomplished.

[reply]