Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 16:26:53 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> To: ache@nagual.pp.ru Cc: terry@lambert.org, sos@sos.freebsd.dk, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: siginterrupt (was Re: Error in sleep !) Message-ID: <199708122326.QAA09419@phaeton.artisoft.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.96.970813025103.1477A-100000@lsd.relcom.eu.net> from "=?KOI8-R?B?4c7E0sXKIP7F0s7P1w==?=" at Aug 13, 97 03:07:28 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > POSIX says that system calls will not be restarted by default (the > > historical System V behaviour for signals). > > Could you please send exact quote just about this particular thing? > Many times POSIX is very unclear or can be misinterpreted. Sorry, I don't have the standard handy. General Rule of thumb: POSIX favors System V behaviour. > > If FreeBSD has been updated to exhibit POSIX behaviour (the original > > poster was claiming it had been), then the signal and siginterrupt > > man pages, which claim historical BSD behaviour, are wrong. They > > should claim POSIX behaviour instead. > > Currently siginterrupt and signal man pages says nothing about POSIX > conformance, so manpages are right independently of how we interpretate > POSIX. They say what the FreeBSD defaults are, and they are (probably) wrong. > POSIX says exactly that _any_ non-blocked and non-ignored signal should > terminate sleep(3)/sleep(1) including default no-op signals like ^T, etc. I think there is a difference between "masked" and "sa_handler == SIG_DFL" here. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199708122326.QAA09419>