Re: Signal handling tune up.

[Christopher Faylor <cgf at redhat dot com>]

On Tue, Aug 19, 2003 at 11:31:32PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>If you do something like:
>
>foo()
>{
>   sigframe thisframe;
>   sig_dispatch_pending ();
>}
>
>then the signal dispatch will happen when foo returns, not when
>sig_dispatch_pending returns.  The goal is that, in most cases, the
>function closest to the user should be the one that gets "interrupted".

Well, that is what I thought the goal was, but looking at the sigframe
code again it doesn't work that way.  If it did work that way then the
current call to call_signal_handler_now in sigreturn wouldn't be
necessary, although the stack pressue would be even greater.

So, I don't know why I put that explicit call in that function.  It's
probably superfluous, as you suspect.

My knees are getting really skinned...

cgf