Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 22:48:06 +0400 From: eugeny gladkih <john@drweb.com> To: Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org Subject: Re: threads/94176: KSE: sigwait doesn't recieve SIGWINCH sent by pthread_kill() or kill -WINCH Message-ID: <8764kusvmh.fsf@amd64.home> In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.64.0604271424400.25542@sea.ntplx.net> (Daniel Eischen's message of "Thu, 27 Apr 2006 14:29:22 -0400 (EDT)") References: <200604271700.k3RH0Yp2063767@freefall.freebsd.org> <Pine.GSO.4.64.0604271424400.25542@sea.ntplx.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>>>>> "DE" == Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org> writes: AG> maybe it would be beneficial to the general programmer public to add AG> something similar to the NOTES section of the following man page to our AG> man page for sigwait: AG> http://condor.wesleyan.edu/cgi-bin/man.cgi?section=2&topic=sigwait >> AG> Using the original example, it would mean adding something like the AG> following code to get the desired behavior: >> AG> void dummy_handler(int signum) AG> { AG> return; AG> } >> AG> void *thread(void* unused) { AG> struct sigaction sa; AG> sa.sa_handler = dummy_handler; AG> sigemptyset(&sa.sa_mask); AG> sa.sa_flags = 0; AG> sigaction(SIGWINCH, &sa, NULL); AG> . AG> . AG> . >> >> >> why so stupid code should be presented in all software wanted >> just to wait the signal? :( DE> Why so stupid programs be written to expect non-portable and DE> non-POSIX behavior? DE> Seriously, go read the POSIX spec. Then try your assumptions DE> on Solaris where it exhibits the same behavior as FreeBSD DE> with regard to SIGWINCH (or any other ignored signal). no, Solaris & Linux go the right way, this code are used on them both, and AIX, too. and even FreeBSD 4.x and 5.X with libc_r. your comments? -- Yours sincerely, Eugeny. Doctor Web, Ltd. http://www.drweb.com
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?8764kusvmh.fsf>