Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 13 Aug 1997 22:34:28 +0400 (MSD)
From:      =?KOI8-R?B?4c7E0sXKIP7F0s7P1w==?= <ache@nagual.pp.ru>
To:        Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org>
Cc:        bde@zeta.org.au, current@FreeBSD.ORG, sos@sos.freebsd.dk
Subject:   Re: siginterrupt (was Re: Error in sleep !)
Message-ID:  <Pine.BSF.3.96.970813222914.18137A-100000@lsd.relcom.eu.net>
In-Reply-To: <199708131822.LAA12815@phaeton.artisoft.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 13 Aug 1997, Terry Lambert wrote:

> > 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"?

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.

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.

-- 
Andrey A. Chernov
<ache@null.net>
http://www.nagual.pp.ru/~ache/




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.96.970813222914.18137A-100000>