------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.
http://bugs.exim.org/show_bug.cgi?id=972 --- Comment #10 from Phil Pennock <[email protected]> 2010-09-07 02:37:25 --- So Exim uses signals in a couple of places. Where it uses setitimer(), it masks out all signals except SIGALRM (which should be safe, for a short period of time) so that only the alarm will get through. nanosleep is not specified to use any particular mechanism, so we can make rough guesses (let through SIGALRM) I don't know enough about the portability of this assumption to be entirely comfortable. So I'd rather stick to the known-good known-portable code which has only ever had issues with one buggy kernel, and then work around the buggy kernel, rather than risk breakages on all the non-buggy platforms by making unwarranted assumptions. Per: http://www.gnu.org/software/hello/manual/gnulib/nanosleep.html we should be fairly safe on current platforms, for our usage, with nanosleep, so if someone else feels we should switch, I'll not object. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugs.exim.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email -- ## List details at http://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-dev Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ##
