httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From p.@sweng.stortek.com
Subject Re: signal() vs. ap_signal()
Date Tue, 04 Apr 2000 20:32:53 GMT
In a recent note, Jeff Trawick said:

> Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2000 16:25:28 -0400
> 
> At least one compiler needs to see signal.h before this macro.
> Can anyone think of a reason not to add the include of signal.h before
> the macro definition, as shown below?  I think the macro is temporary
> anyway according to the cvs log entry for when this macro was added.
> 
Is it possible that some system might define "signal" as a macro
rather than a function, in which case it's necessary to #undef it
before you #define it?

> ===================================================================
> +#if APR_HAVE_SIGNAL_H
> +#include <signal.h>
> +#endif
> +
>  #define signal(s, f)    ap_signal(s, f)
> 
-- gil
-- 
StorageTek
INFORMATION made POWERFUL

Mime
View raw message