On Wed, 2005-01-26 at 17:15 +0100, Robert Millan wrote: > On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 10:26:51AM -0500, Albert Cahalan wrote:
> > Eeew. The BSDisms in glibc never fail to sicken me. > > I've noticed that signal() is broken (it should map > > to the Linux system call, which correctly follows the > > 7th Edition and SysV behavior of unsetting the signal > > handler when it is called). Also, fputs() does not > > have the correct SysV return value. I sure wish the > > glibc hackers would realize that, if I wanted BSD, I > > would not be running Linux! > > Well, for other BSDisms like strlcpy/strlcat they have a different opinion. I don't mind adding BSD features. I do that myself, all the time, with procps. It's losing the Real UNIX features that gets on my nerves. The mistake with signal() was especially offensive, since Linux already had a syscall for that. Glibc is really the Hurd library though. :-( > > Oh, I suppose, but can't you just implement SIGPWR? > > All the real UNIX systems have it. > > > > There should be one signal left out. Find what it is. > > Hopefully, the default action matches that of SIGPWR. > > If so, then just call that SIGPWR. > > I could try.. but I'm not sure if FreeBSD upstream would accept a patch for > that. I didn't see SIGPWR in any standard. Before long, it'll probably be added to the standard. The last time around, SIGSYS was added. Just make the FreeBSD header files do this: #define SIGPOLL 23 #define SIGPWR 29 #define SIGIO SIGPOLL #define SIGLOST SIGPWR -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
