Re: 4 week-old pretest bugs

[Jan Djärv]

Richard Stallman skrev:
>     So, in order for BLOCK_INPUT to work reliably, it seems that
>     interrupt_input_blocked should be declared as volatile (or maybe
>     `volatile sig_atomic_t' instead of `volatile int') because it is
>     accessed from a signal handler.
>
> Isn't it the case that the C spec calls for this to be volatile?

Quote form the C standard:

"The type defined is
       sig_atomic_t
which is the (possibly volatile-qualified) integer type of an object that can
be accessed as an atomic entity, even in the presence of asynchronous
interrupts."

However, Neither glibc or Solaris has volatile in the definition.  I think the 
thing guaranteed is "accessed", not "modified".

        Jan D.