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 retur
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 t
On 18/09/15 04:27, Daniel Richard G. wrote:
> Hello list,
>
> Lately I am testing and enhancing Gnulib on a relatively exotic
> POSIX platform.
>
> This platform lacks nanosleep(), and so uses the implementation
> starting at lib/nanosleep.c:227 (Git master). Investigating a failure
> in test-nan
Hello list,
Lately I am testing and enhancing Gnulib on a relatively exotic
POSIX platform.
This platform lacks nanosleep(), and so uses the implementation
starting at lib/nanosleep.c:227 (Git master). Investigating a failure
in test-nanosleep, I found that the following assertion...
ASSERT
