On 19/09/15 01:25, Daniel Richard G. wrote: > On Fri, 2015 Sep 18 09:32+0100, Pádraig Brady wrote: >> >> I think the SIGCONT handling is to handle reception of explicit >> SIGSTOP and SIGCONT > > Ah, okay, that makes sense. > >>> and even if it did, the nanosleep() implementation would then return >>> 1 instead of the correct value of -1. >> >> Yes that looks incorrect. >> Perhaps something like this suffices: > > Indeed, test-nanosleep now passes for me on both Linux (when using that > implementation) and the system I'm working on. Thank you for the fix!
Pushed at http://git.sv.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=gnulib.git;a=commitdiff;h=6439a0af thanks, Pádraig
