From owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Apr 30 09:12:22 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-bugs@hub.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 538CA1065670 for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 09:12:22 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::28]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DA508FC14 for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 09:12:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q3U9CLSK049929 for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 09:12:21 GMT (envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.5/8.14.5/Submit) id q3U9CL9Z049928; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 09:12:21 GMT (envelope-from gnats) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 09:12:21 GMT Message-Id: <201204300912.q3U9CL9Z049928@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org From: Valentin Nechayev Cc: Subject: Re: kern/19402: Signals 127 and 128 cannot be detected in wait4() interface X-BeenThere: freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Valentin Nechayev List-Id: Bug reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 09:12:22 -0000 The following reply was made to PR kern/19402; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Valentin Nechayev To: Jilles Tjoelker Cc: bug-followup@FreeBSD.org, bde@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: kern/19402: Signals 127 and 128 cannot be detected in wait4() interface Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 12:04:54 +0300 Hi, Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 00:46:19, jilles wrote about "Re: kern/19402: Signals 127 and 128 cannot be detected in wait4() interface": > > [problems with signals 127 and 128] > > First, note that "clean" programs cannot use signals 127 and 128 because > they do neither have a SIG* constant nor are in the range SIGRTMIN to > SIGRTMAX. You are correct here now, but not at the time I have issued the original request. Values for SIGRTMIN, SIGRTMAX initially appeared only in version 1.47 (Oct 2005) and was incorrect. Revision 1.53 reduced SIGRTMAX from 128 to 126 exactly concerning this my PR. So, if we stick on treating 126 as maximal possible signal number which doesn't break existing ABI, all seems satisfied and I suggest simply to close it as fixed. No need to change any more. -netch-