Jim Meyering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Eric Blake asked:
>>> Should the open-safer module depend on open?
>>
>> Yes, I think fcntl-safer should depend on 'open'.
>>
>> Jim, your opinion?
>
> Yes, most definitely.
> There are a few other modules that may
Eric Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> According to Jim Meyering on 6/23/2008 2:12 AM:
> | 83ASSERT (old_sa.sa_flags == 0);
> |
> | And the value of old_sa.sa_flags is 0x400,
> | which happens to be SA_RESTORER.
>
> Ah. An extension flag, not defined by POSIX. In short, gnulib can't
Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Eric Blake asked:
>> Should the open-safer module depend on open?
>
> Yes, I think fcntl-safer should depend on 'open'.
>
> Jim, your opinion?
Yes, most definitely.
There are a few other modules that may call open in such a way
(for writing, and with an ar
Eric Blake asked:
> Should the open-safer module depend on open?
Yes, I think fcntl-safer should depend on 'open'.
Jim, your opinion?
Bruno
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
According to Eric Blake on 6/23/2008 6:42 AM:
| According to Ralf Wildenhues on 6/23/2008 6:36 AM:
| |> +#define SA_MASK (SA_NOCLDSTOP | SA_ONSTACK | SA_RESETHAND |
| SA_RESTART\
| |> + SA_SIGINFO | SA_NOCLDWAIT | SA_NODEFER)
| |
| | For s
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
According to Ralf Wildenhues on 6/23/2008 6:36 AM:
|> +#define SA_MASK (SA_NOCLDSTOP | SA_ONSTACK | SA_RESETHAND | SA_RESTART \
|> + SA_SIGINFO | SA_NOCLDWAIT | SA_NODEFER)
|
| For safety, don't you want to stay outside the reserved SA_* na
Hi Eric,
* Eric Blake wrote on Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 02:26:16PM CEST:
> --- a/tests/test-sigaction.c
> +++ b/tests/test-sigaction.c
> +/* Define a mask of flags required by POSIX. Some implementations
> + provide other flags as extensions, such as SA_RESTORER, that we
> + must ignore in this
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
According to Jim Meyering on 6/23/2008 2:12 AM:
| 83ASSERT (old_sa.sa_flags == 0);
|
| And the value of old_sa.sa_flags is 0x400,
| which happens to be SA_RESTORER.
Ah. An extension flag, not defined by POSIX. In short, gnulib can't mak
Hi Eric,
I noticed that the coreutils "make check" is failing due to
gnulib's new sigaction test. The buildbot shows it, too:
http://buildbot.proulx.com:9000/amd64 gnu-linux/builds/8679/step-test/0
---
FAIL: test-sigaction.log (exit: 134)
