On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 10:12:43AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > Karel Zak wrote: > >On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 03:55:13PM +0200, maximilian attems wrote: > >>s/signal/bsd_signal/ to make it evident which semantics > >>are expected. > > > >(guy, be happy that Ulrich Drepper is not around:-) > > > >why not sigaction(2) ? > > > >man bsd_signal: > > On modern Linux systems, bsd_signal() and signal(2) > > are equivalent. > > > >Do you mean that klibc signal() is different from glibc? > > > > I dropped signal() from klibc entirely, because I didn't like the > ambiguity between SysV and BSD semantics. "On modern Linux systems" > refer to the unilateral decision of glibc to switch from signal() > meaning sysv_signal() to signal() meaning bsd_signal(). > > This *did* turn out to be a reasonable thing to do, as most code out > there that uses unadorned signal() appears to be BSD-derived. > > I specifically stated in the README for klibc that "if you want signal, > compile with -Dsignal=bsd_signal or -Dsignal=sysv_signal". woow, thanks for the guidance. that went unnoticed in Debian/Ubuntu for all available klibc builds. will take care to have it set in the next upload, so don't have to bother karel with my stupid patch. kind regards -- maks -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe util-linux-ng" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
