This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sourceware.org mailing list for the glibc project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Signals and errno (was: Re: Consensus on MT-, AS- and AC-Safety docs.)

From: Florian Weimer <fweimer at redhat dot com>
To: "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos at redhat dot com>
Cc: GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 14:37:41 +0100
Subject: Signals and errno (was: Re: Consensus on MT-, AS- and AC-Safety docs.)
Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
References: <528A7C8F dot 8060805 at redhat dot com> <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1311182312130 dot 8831 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <528BA2DA dot 3090608 at redhat dot com> <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1311192205550 dot 8742 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <20131120204655 dot GL24286 at brightrain dot aerifal dot cx> <5295CD1D dot 7080501 at redhat dot com> <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1311271329590 dot 5027 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <5295F7A3 dot 9050209 at redhat dot com> <5298243E dot 5050401 at redhat dot com> <20131129175805 dot GF24286 at brightrain dot aerifal dot cx> <529DE17E dot 7010105 at redhat dot com> <529DF84C dot 5050204 at redhat dot com> <529F08E7 dot 6010701 at redhat dot com> <529F669C dot 6080504 at redhat dot com> <52B01FF5 dot 5090400 at redhat dot com> <52B0C63D dot 4000901 at redhat dot com>

On 12/17/2013 10:46 PM, Carlos O'Donell wrote:

On 12/17/2013 04:57 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:

<http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=807>

How likely is that the Austin Group will ever close this ticket, even
with a indeterminate conclusion like "the standard does not specify
errno-restoring behavior"?  How long should we wait for such a
resolution?  (I think it's too late for this change for 2.19
anyway.)


If by "close" you mean "fix the language of the standard in some way,"
then it's very likely. However someone needs to drive the process to
get consensus on exactly what language change you want. Repost a final
requested set of changes and ask for agreement? It's just like
in glibc, repost, get consensus, refine, final agreement, and then it
will likely go into Issue 8 of POSIX.

As you can see, I added a proposal to the issue tracker at the URLabove, but there hasn't been a reaction. Any suggestions?


--
Florian Weimer / Red Hat Product Security Team

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Signals and errno
  - From: Carlos O'Donell

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