Re: hook question

[Rici Lake <lua@...>]

On 16-Oct-06, at 9:52 AM, David Jones wrote:

> On 14 Oct 2006, at 00:37, Rici Lake wrote:
>
> > lua_sethook() is advertised as being signal-safe. I'm prepared to 
> > trust Roberto's judgement that it is, although it seems to me that 
> > Posix would prefer that some of those fields be declared as volatile 
> > sig_atomic_t. However, I'm sure that Roberto has thought this 
> > through, and certainly I haven't noticed any problems with it.
>
> In this context volatile is voodoo (and unnecessary).  If the promise 
> made by sig_atomic_t requires the volatile qualifier (and it probably 
> does) then that qualifier should be part of the typedef otherwise the 
> standard isn't being implemented properly.

Quite right. I was misreading posix, and not for the first time.