On 15 September 2011 18:22, Laszlo Ersek <ler...@redhat.com> wrote: > -int no_shutdown = 0; > +volatile int no_shutdown = 0;
So why 'volatile' and not 'sig_atomic_t', then? thanks -- PMM
On 15 September 2011 18:22, Laszlo Ersek <ler...@redhat.com> wrote: > -int no_shutdown = 0; > +volatile int no_shutdown = 0;
So why 'volatile' and not 'sig_atomic_t', then? thanks -- PMM