From owner-freebsd-hackers  Tue Dec  5 20:22:20 1995
Return-Path: owner-hackers
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) id UAA03060
          for hackers-outgoing; Tue, 5 Dec 1995 20:22:20 -0800
Received: from nudge.io.org (nudge.io.org [198.133.36.4])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id UAA03032
          for <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>; Tue, 5 Dec 1995 20:22:13 -0800
Received: from cabal.io.org (cabal.io.org [198.133.36.103]) by nudge.io.org (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id XAA13790 for <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>; Tue, 5 Dec 1995 23:22:07 -0500
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 1995 23:21:38 -0500 (EST)
From: Brian Tao <taob@io.org>
To: FREEBSD-HACKERS-L <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>
Subject: execve(2) man page update?
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.91.951205231620.193C-100000@cabal.io.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org
Precedence: bulk

    Just noticed this today:


EXECVE(2)                  UNIX Programmer's Manual                  EXECVE(2)
[...]
     The new process also inherits the following attributes from the calling
     process:
[...]
           signal mask          see sigvec(2),  sigsetmask(2)


    Those two man pages say the functions are obsolete and one should
call sigaction(2) and sigprocmask(2) respectively.  Should the
references in execve(2) be updated as well?
--
Brian Tao (BT300, taob@io.org)
Systems Administrator, Internex Online Inc.
"Though this be madness, yet there is method in't"