Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 11:43:53 -0700 (PDT) From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" <rfg@monkeys.com> To: FreeBSD-gnats-submit@freebsd.org Subject: docs/21542: sigaction(2) man page is misleading Message-ID: <200009251843.LAA10409@monkeys.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>Number: 21542
>Category: docs
>Synopsis: sigaction(2) man page is misleading
>Confidential: no
>Severity: non-critical
>Priority: low
>Responsible: freebsd-doc
>State: open
>Quarter:
>Keywords:
>Date-Required:
>Class: doc-bug
>Submitter-Id: current-users
>Arrival-Date: Mon Sep 25 11:50:01 PDT 2000
>Closed-Date:
>Last-Modified:
>Originator: Ronald F. Guilmette
>Release: FreeBSD 4.1-RELEASE i386
>Organization:
Infinite Monkeys & Co.
>Environment:
>Description:
The sigaction(2) man page is misleading with regards to the current
(new) definition of the `struct sigaction' type. That type is now
defined as:
struct sigaction {
union {
void (*__sa_handler) __P((int));
void (*__sa_sigaction) __P((int, struct __siginfo *,
void *));
} __sigaction_u; /* signal handler */
int sa_flags; /* see signal options below */
sigset_t sa_mask; /* signal mask to apply */
};
But the definition given in the sigaction(2) man page leads one to
believe that the following might be valid C code:
struct sigaction thing = { handler, 0, 0 };
but if you do that, with -Wall, gcc complains about a missing set of
curly braces.
>How-To-Repeat:
See above.
>Fix:
Just say what the POSIX standard says, i.e. ``The `struct sigaction'
type contains at least the following members...'' Just say that on
the man page, rather than attempting to actually show (inaccurately)
the definition of the sigaction structure.
>Release-Note:
>Audit-Trail:
>Unformatted:
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-doc" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200009251843.LAA10409>