Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 21:39:57 +0400 (MSD) From: =?KOI8-R?B?4c7E0sXKIP7F0s7P1w==?= <ache@nagual.pp.ru> To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG, sos@sos.freebsd.dk, terry@lambert.org Subject: Re: siginterrupt (was Re: Error in sleep !) Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.970813213540.17041C-100000@lsd.relcom.eu.net> In-Reply-To: <199708131647.CAA18733@godzilla.zeta.org.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 14 Aug 1997, Bruce Evans wrote: > >I mean not application which uses some signal interface but initial > >handling of SIG_DFL _before_ any sigaction() or signal() used. I.e. is it > >safe per POSIX to have SA_RESTART for SIG_DFL action initially at > >application startup (before any application actions)? > > The initial value for sa_flags seems to be unspecified. In practice, it > is 0 in FreeBSD. This probably only matters if you use sigaction() to > find the old value and write a modified value, since SA_RESTART doesn't > affect SIG_DFL actions (it only affects caught signals). It doesn't > matter for the other flags, since the "BSD default" for them is off. 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. -- 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.3.96.970813213540.17041C-100000>