Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 12:50:32 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> To: ache@nagual.pp.ru (=?KOI8-R?B?4c7E0sXKIP7F0s7P1w==?=) Cc: terry@lambert.org, bde@zeta.org.au, current@FreeBSD.ORG, sos@sos.freebsd.dk Subject: Re: siginterrupt (was Re: Error in sleep !) Message-ID: <199708131950.MAA12930@phaeton.artisoft.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.96.970813222914.18137A-100000@lsd.relcom.eu.net> from "=?KOI8-R?B?4c7E0sXKIP7F0s7P1w==?=" at Aug 13, 97 10:34:28 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > > So, it means that we still compatible with POSIX here. > > > I'll change > > > the default behaviour on FreeBSD > > > to > > > the default behaviour for signal(3) on FreeBSD > > > to make siginterrupt(3) man page more clear. > > > > Still wrong. FreeBSD does not restart system calls by default. > > Hmm. What do you mean exacly in "by default"? Without you specifically calling siginterrupt() to toggle SA_RESTART from off to on (default is off), or calling sigaction() to set the SA_RESTART bit in the sa_flags filed (non-POSIX flag value). > When program use signal(3), it have restartable syscalls, but this case > not covered by POSIX at all since there is no signal(3) in POSIX. It's very odd, and not terribly consistent. I know. 8-|. > When program use sigaction(2) with sa_flags == 0, it _not_ have > restartable syscalls as POSIX requires. > > > I think it was a bad decision, but it's one required for a strict > > POSIX environment. > > IMHO, we already are inside strict POSIX requirement in this area. What if you call neither sigaction(), nor signal()? What if you call sleep(3)? What behaviour does it have? That's the point... Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199708131950.MAA12930>