Re: SBCL 2.3.11: Core dump after typing Control-4

Whoops, so it is. Exclude that one from consideration.

So I guess the question is how likely it is SBCL might ever need other
async signals for internal use, right?

Stas Boukarev <[email protected]> wrote:

> SIGUSR2 is SIG_STOP_FOR_GC, don't do that.
> 
> On Wed, Jun 25, 2025 at 4:41 PM Richard M Kreuter via Sbcl-help
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Would there be much downside letting users do the equivalent of
> >
> >   signal(SIGQUIT, SIG_IGN);
> >
> > ? And likewise for SIGHUP, SIGUSR1, SIGUSR2.
> >
> > And while I'm asking, how about letting users do
> >
> >   signal(SIGINT, SIG_DFL);
> >
> > for cases where you don't want SBCL's SIGINT handler?
> >
> > Note that I'm only thinking about the two handlers defined in the C
> > standard, not arbitrary user-defined ones.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Richard
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Sbcl-help mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sbcl-help


_______________________________________________
Sbcl-help mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sbcl-help