Premysl Hruby --> dev (2009-08-12 17:39:26 +0200): > On (12/08/09 17:24), Jukka Salmi wrote: [...] > > Seems fine, but -- assuming POSIX.1 reliable signals -- you don't need > > to reestablish the handler before returning from it. Or should systems > > with the old semantics really be supported by dwm? > > > > According to POSIX, if the signal is blocked after sighandler or not is > undefined. In case of Linux and GLibc it depends on version of Glibc and > -std etc... (read man 2 signal, section Portability).
Ok, you really referred to the old signal(2) semantics. I took for granted that signal(3) was implemented by using sigaction(2) (as it is on at least NetBSD). dwm should use sigaction instead of signal... Regards, Jukka -- This email fills a much-needed gap in the archives.
