From owner-freebsd-hackers  Thu Feb 27 03:18:17 1997
Return-Path: <owner-hackers>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id DAA19551
          for hackers-outgoing; Thu, 27 Feb 1997 03:18:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from godzilla.zeta.org.au (godzilla.zeta.org.au [203.2.228.19])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id DAA19544;
          Thu, 27 Feb 1997 03:18:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from bde@localhost) by godzilla.zeta.org.au (8.8.3/8.6.9) id WAA28126; Thu, 27 Feb 1997 22:14:34 +1100
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 22:14:34 +1100
From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>
Message-Id: <199702271114.WAA28126@godzilla.zeta.org.au>
To: bde@zeta.org.au, mpp@freefall.freebsd.org
Subject: Re: sig*set macros in <signal.h>
Cc: freebsd-hackers@freefall.freebsd.org
Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

>> >Is there a good reason for having the sig*set macros defined
>> >in <signal.h> and the equivalent functions in libc?

>> [Long answer.]

>Let's try this again.

>Can we remove the macro definitions, and just rely on the functions?

Not so long answer: why do you want to?  Some versions of Linux
removed them because they are buggy, but the FreeBSD libc versions
are equally buggy.

Short answer: no.

Bruce