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

[Florian Weimer]

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 URL 
above, but there hasn't been a reaction.  Any suggestions?

-- 
Florian Weimer / Red Hat Product Security Team