From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Aug 31 4:53:50 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mail.scc.nl (node1374.a2000.nl [62.108.19.116]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DC2715234 for ; Tue, 31 Aug 1999 04:53:47 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from freebsd-hackers@scc.nl) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by mail.scc.nl (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA63846 for hackers@FreeBSD.ORG; Tue, 31 Aug 1999 13:38:18 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from freebsd-hackers@scc.nl) Received: from GATEWAY by dwarf.hq.scc.nl with netnews for hackers@FreeBSD.ORG (hackers@FreeBSD.ORG) To: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 13:38:12 +0200 From: Marcel Moolenaar Message-ID: <37CBBEA4.C03DB96E@scc.nl> Organization: SCC vof Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <37CABABF.33E13FF@netscape.net>, Subject: Re: More than 32 signals. Thought? Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Doug Rabson wrote: > > On Mon, 30 Aug 1999, Francis Jordan wrote: > > > Do as NetBSD does to remain compatible? Or borrow a few thoughts from > > Solaris, which also has 128 signals: > > > > typedef struct { /* signal set type */ > > unsigned long __sigbits[4]; > > } sigset_t; > > Please be careful with your datatypes when formulating this. If you are > going to pack 32 signals into one field, make it u_int32_t, not int or > long. I also was not quite happy with the choice of type for __sigbits. Is it worth having __sigbits to be the size that most suits the architecture (32 for i386; 64 for alpha) because of the frequent bit manipulations that are expected to be performed with it? -- Marcel Moolenaar mailto:marcel@scc.nl SCC Internetworking & Databases http://www.scc.nl/ Amsterdam, The Netherlands tel: +31 20 4200655 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message