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] |
> If the mask is returned and the bit is not set something might be > handled differently than expected. I don't know of a case, I'm just > looking throught the specs. If some piece in the test suite is > testing this it will complain. Now it won't anymore. What I have been saying is that I have no reason to think that seeing that bit set is the "expected behavior". I haven't checked BSD, but my offhand guess would be that the bit would not be set in sa_mask as reported by sigaction after a signal call.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |