From: sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu (Charles Sandmann)
Message-Id: <9801161424.AA14898@clio.rice.edu>
Subject: Re: Request for comments: SIGQUIT in DJGPP v2.02
To: k3040e4 AT wildsau DOT idv-edu DOT uni-linz DOT ac DOT at (Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer)
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 08:24:08 -0600 (CST)
Cc: dj AT delorie DOT com, eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il, djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-Reply-To: <199801160702.IAA22842@wildsau.idv.uni-linz.ac.at> from "Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer" at Jan 16, 98 08:02:33 am
Content-Type: text
Precedence: bulk

> > I'm beginning to think that supporting SIGQUIT just isn't worth it.
> 
> I'm also more than a bit sceptic about the SIGQUIT extension.

I'm not crazy about it either.  

> I strongly vote for an explicit `__djgpp_enable_sigquit()'.
> 
> [ Is SIGQUIT really that important ? - just to describe my ignorance ;-),
>   though running Linux for more than 3 years I even don't know where
>   this key is located on my German keyboard ]

The equivalent DJGPP behavior is really CTRL-BREAK.  Maybe this is
what should be bound to this signal?  You can change the keys which
are bound to signals on unix, so there is no guarantee that CTRL-\
has anything to do with SIGQUIT anyway.