Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 16:56:37 -0500 From: Lucas Bergman <lucas@slb.to> To: Arcady Genkin <a.genkin@utoronto.ca> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [OT] Reinstalling signal handler inside signal handler Message-ID: <20010405165637.C18827@billygoat.slb.to> In-Reply-To: <87vgojc9gc.fsf@tea.thpoon.com>; from a.genkin@utoronto.ca on Thu, Apr 05, 2001 at 05:39:47PM -0400 References: <87d7ardw5s.fsf@tea.thpoon.com> <20010405161123.A18827@billygoat.slb.to> <87vgojc9gc.fsf@tea.thpoon.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > Signals on "traditional" systems (V7, System V) were reset to
> > their default behavior after they were raised, so the signal
> > handler had to reinstall itself if it was to persist. BSD changed
> > that; you have to deliberately reset a signal's behavior (excuse
> > the split infinitive). Linux actually follows the old semantics,
> > but you can include <bsd/signal.h> instead of <signal.h> (or call
> > __bsd_signal() instead of signal()) to get the BSD semantics.
>
> Lucas, thanks for your answer. For the record, it seems like Linux
> does use the *BSD* sematics that you describe above.
I'll be damned. The following code demonstrates that you're right:
% uname -a
Linux apu 2.2.16 #15 Thu Feb 15 11:12:47 CST 2001 i686 unknown
% cat sig.c
#include <stdio.h>
#include <signal.h>
#include <unistd.h>
void f(int sig) { printf("signal handled\n"); }
int main()
{
if (signal(SIGHUP, f) == SIG_ERR)
{
fprintf(stderr, "Blargh!\n");
exit(1);
}
for (;;) sleep(1);
return 0;
}
% gcc -Wall -g -o sig sig.c
% ./sig &
[1] 30547
% kill -HUP 30547
signal handled
% kill -HUP 30547
signal handled
I'm not really a Linux person, so I was just quoting the man page,
which I guess is out of date.
Cheers,
Lucas
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010405165637.C18827>