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 17:41:12 -0400 (EDT)
Cc: GNU libc hacker <libc-hacker at sourceware dot cygnus dot com>

> 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.

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]