On 05/29/2013 09:04 AM, John Reiser wrote:
> Comment: In practice SIGRTMIN is a very stable value. For each architecture
> SIGRTMIN is chosen at the time of the original port, and after that SIGRTMIN
> "never" will change, although in theory it could. The value of SIGRTMAX
> is less stable becau
On 05/29/2013 01:35 AM, Harald Hoyer wrote:
> On 04/24/2013 05:26 PM, Chet Ramey wrote:
>> On 4/23/13 2:05 AM, Harald Hoyer wrote:
>>> As reported in http://savannah.gnu.org/patch/?8025 , I would like to see the
>>> SIGRTMAX-n signal names disappear.
>>>
>>> Signals should never ever be addressed w
On 04/24/2013 05:26 PM, Chet Ramey wrote:
> On 4/23/13 2:05 AM, Harald Hoyer wrote:
>> As reported in http://savannah.gnu.org/patch/?8025 , I would like to see the
>> SIGRTMAX-n signal names disappear.
>>
>> Signals should never ever be addressed with SIGRTMAX-n. Signals should
>> always be
>> add
On 04/24/2013 05:26 PM, Chet Ramey wrote:
> On 4/23/13 2:05 AM, Harald Hoyer wrote:
>> As reported in http://savannah.gnu.org/patch/?8025 , I would like to see the
>> SIGRTMAX-n signal names disappear.
>>
>> Signals should never ever be addressed with SIGRTMAX-n. Signals should
>> always be
>> add
On 4/23/13 2:05 AM, Harald Hoyer wrote:
> As reported in http://savannah.gnu.org/patch/?8025 , I would like to see the
> SIGRTMAX-n signal names disappear.
>
> Signals should never ever be addressed with SIGRTMAX-n. Signals should always
> be
> addressed with SIGRTMIN+n.
I'll take a look at this
?file_id=27910
>From d0d341e4e179d0ec3ce1f5a2bebe2aba7183a04e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Harald Hoyer
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2013 07:41:59 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] Obsolete SIGRTMAX-n signal names
Never ever address signals with SIGRTMAX-n. Signals should always be
addressed with SIGRTMIN+n.
h
