[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: SECURITYLEVEL 1 vs. Setexc

To: "Julian F. Reschke" <fjr010@email.mot.com>
Subject: Re: SECURITYLEVEL 1 vs. Setexc
From: Konrad Kokoszkiewicz <draco@mi.com.pl>
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 14:06:46 +0200 (CEST)
Cc: MiNT mailing list <mint@atari.archive.umich.edu>
In-reply-to: <35446D04.DFB0BE66@email.mot.com>

> I just wanted to do some tests of my command line tools. The second
> candidate (find.ttp) immediately failed, because it attempts to
> change the critical error handler using Setexc.
> 
> HOWEVER: this is a per-process vector which is private to my process.
> I think it should be allowed to change this (the same applies probably
> to etv_term).

Fixed.

--
Konrad M.Kokoszkiewicz
|mail: draco@mi.com.pl                  | Atari Falcon030/TT030/65XE |
|http://www.orient.uw.edu.pl/~conradus/ |  *** FreeMiNT 1.14.7. ***  |

** Ea natura multitudinis est,
** aut servit humiliter, aut superbe dominatur (Liv. XXIV,25)
*************************************************************
** U pospolstwa normalne jest, ze albo sluzy ono unizenie,
** albo bezczelnie sie panoszy.

References:
- SECURITYLEVEL 1 vs. Setexc
  - From: "Julian F. Reschke" <fjr010@email.mot.com>

Prev by Date: Re: Ssystem GETCOOKIE return values
Next by Date: Re: Ssystem bug
Previous by thread: SECURITYLEVEL 1 vs. Setexc
Next by thread: Ssystem GETCOOKIE return values
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread