Pádraig Brady <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Eric Blake wrote: >> On the other hand, POSIX is explicit that mixing signal and sigaction is >> not portable. For that matter, now that gnulib provides a guaranteed >> sigaction, why don't we just change all of coreutils to use it? Affected >> are: csplit, dd, install, ls, nohup, sort, tee, and timeout. > > Good idea. > > Perhaps we should just define our own signal() > or bsd_signal() that calls sigaction() appropriately. > I find signal() a much simpler interface than sigaction().
Hi Pádraig, So do I. I suppose it's worth considering, but "signal" is old and unportable enough that I don't want to use that name. Even bsd_signal carries baggage that we'd best avoid. However, we have to weigh the cost of using a nonstandard wrapper (readers would not recognize it right away) against using POSIX's sigaction. For now, let's look at the result after Eric's proposed signal-removing clean-up/modernization is done. Removing all of those in-function #ifdefs is already a big improvement. Maybe that'll be enough. If not, you can show us how much cleaner it can be using a simpler interface ;-) _______________________________________________ Bug-coreutils mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-coreutils
