This is the mail archive of the libc-hacker@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the glibc project.

Note that libc-hacker is a closed list. You may look at the archives of this list, but subscription and posting are not open.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: signal/bsd_signal

To: drepper at cygnus dot com (Ulrich Drepper)
Subject: Re: signal/bsd_signal
From: Roland McGrath <roland at frob dot com>
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 17:12:34 -0400 (EDT)
Cc: GNU libc hacker <libc-hacker at sourceware dot cygnus dot com>

> Roland McGrath <roland@frob.com> writes:
> 
> > The only observable difference between having it or not is in what
> > value (sigaction(sig, 0, &oact), oact.sa_mask) has.
> 
> Right.  So adding the sigaddset() seems correct.

Eh?  Well, it is superfluous and so I don't see why you say it "seems
correct" (as opposed to its lack).  If you want signal to be anally
compatible with BSD, then one will have to check whether the sa_mask value
reported by sigaction after a signal call contains the signal in question
or not.  I have to stretch to contemplate ways a program could manage to
care one way or the other.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: signal/bsd_signal
  - From: Ulrich Drepper

References:
- Re: signal/bsd_signal
  - From: Ulrich Drepper

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]