I noticed this, when experimenting with a sigaction replacement for mingw.
Applying this as obvious.
Also, are there any systems targetted by gnulib where raise() still does not
exist (even though C89 requires it)? Or can I go ahead and clean up
sigprocmask.c and fatal-signal.c to blindly assume the existence of raise, as
well as delete the raise module?
>From de3b21e891899b568ae0d124d15ae1bc412f12d0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Eric Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 14:17:11 -0600
Subject: [PATCH] Fix compliance bug in sigpending.
* lib/sigprocmask.c (sigpending): Return pending array via
parameter, not return value.
Signed-off-by: Eric Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
ChangeLog | 6 ++++++
lib/sigprocmask.c | 5 +++--
2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/ChangeLog b/ChangeLog
index c2f2a81..054cec0 100644
--- a/ChangeLog
+++ b/ChangeLog
@@ -1,3 +1,9 @@
+2008-06-16 Eric Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
+
+ Fix compliance bug in sigpending.
+ * lib/sigprocmask.c (sigpending): Return pending array via
+ parameter, not return value.
+
2008-06-14 Eric Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Improve obstack-printf test code.
diff --git a/lib/sigprocmask.c b/lib/sigprocmask.c
index 221fc96..e2f6d8b 100644
--- a/lib/sigprocmask.c
+++ b/lib/sigprocmask.c
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
/* POSIX compatible signal blocking.
- Copyright (C) 2006-2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
+ Copyright (C) 2006-2008 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
Written by Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 2006.
This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify
@@ -107,7 +107,8 @@ sigpending (sigset_t *set)
for (sig = 0; sig < NSIG; sig++)
if (pending_array[sig])
pending |= 1U << sig;
- return pending;
+ *set = pending;
+ return 0;
}
/* The previous signal handlers.
--
1.5.5.1
