Date: Mon, 1 Jul 1996 18:40:26 +1000 From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> To: bde@zeta.org.au, jau@aphrodite.funet.fi Cc: hackers@freebsd.org, terry@lambert.org Subject: Re: POSIX.4 signals + other POSIX.4 stuff to FreeBSD... Message-ID: <199607010840.SAA18029@godzilla.zeta.org.au>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>> >struct sigaction {
>> > union {
>> >....
>> > void (*sa_handler) _P((int, ...));
> then some" implementation. Those dots were put there just to keep
> the compiler quiet when I needed the BSD style extended argument
> list. They don't break anything really, but for reasons of strict
They break the possibility of compiling (all) applications with -mrtd on
i386's, and they break implementations where the equivalent of -mrtd or
some other complicated (efficient) arg passing convention is standard.
>> The user sigismember() is more or less required to check the bounds, so
>> it needs to be larger and uglier. The kernel should probably check `sig'
>> in advance and then use special kernel versions of the signal manipulation
>> functions.
> Right - the kernel should check that the signal code is within
> the range of known signals. It should be done almost the first
> thing at the beginning of the system calls that deal with the
> signals. It would be much more of an effort if the macros were
> really changed to check the range every time they are used.
The kernel shouldn't use the user macros because it would become slower
if the the user macros were fixed to actually meet their specification.
Bruce
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199607010840.SAA18029>