System 5.3.1 signal() replacement?

[rja]

In article <9055 at smoke.BRL.MIL>, gwyn at smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn ) writes:
> ANSI C will specify signal() and minimal associated semantics for it,
> just enough for applications to have a "fighting chance" at portable
> use of signals.  Technically there are loopholes big enough to drive
> an M1A1 through, but it is to be hoped that most implementations will
> strive to provide usable signal facilities.  POSIX (IEEE Std 1003.1)
> specifies a different interface that is considerably more robust, so
> if you need to do much more than trap SIGINT to set an "interrupt
> requested" shared flag (of type "volatile sig_atomic_t"), you're
> advised to use the POSIX facilities instead of signal().

I am unclear about the part above where it seems to state that the
IEEE 1003.1 POSIX standard and ANSI C standard are in conflict.
I keep reading in IEEE Computer and the earlier published 1003.1 draft
that they were coordinating their effort with the X3J11 effort to make
sure the 2 were compatible.

Ran
rja at edison.ge.com