Steve Price wrote:
> Just curious as to what the motivation for re-ordering the
> sa_flags and sa_mask members in sigaction were? The manpage
> still describes the old order BTW.
If sigset_t is to be changed again, then having it the last field in the
structure leaves us some room to avoid introducing new syscalls all over
again and handle the change with the current structure and syscalls.
> My Alpha box has been limping through a package build and I've
> noticed a number of ports that seem to be falling over for
> signal-related changes.
This should not be caused be the ordering of the fields in struct
sigaction.
> One in particular would be the rawio
> port which expects sa_mask to be before sa_flags in struct
> sigaction.
Silly...
--
Marcel Moolenaar mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
SCC Internetworking & Databases http://www.scc.nl/
The FreeBSD project mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
