I was saying that writing two signal handlers is not very good. Because the code for the one parameter one is a subset of the other. Any change to that shared code should be applied at two places which might introduce errors. Any way I understand that as the shared code is a few lines this is not a big deal.
Since in both cases the signal handler must have different parameter lists, do we have much option? Typecasting is not favourable.
> If there is no uniform pattern in which these macros are present or absent, > we can do something like: > #ifdef SA_SIGINFO > #ifdef SEGV_MAPPERR > #ifdef <any missing sigaction macro> > ... > #define USE_SIGACTION > ... > #endif > #endif > #endif > ...and then depending upon whether USE_SIGACTION is defined or undefined, > we use 'sigaction' or 'signal'.
This sounds good. Another possibility is to just disable sigaction for FreeBSD and document this behaviour. The FreeBSD kernel guys already know this and it is fixed in their latest CVS branch.
I do not want to disable sigaction completely. It does provide some verbosity, which is desirable. If the other BSDs also have the same issue, then enclosing the 'case's with #ifdef..#endif blocks can be helpful while porting Parted to them. Happy hacking, Debarshi -- GPG key ID: 63D4A5A7 Key server: pgp.mit.edu _______________________________________________ parted-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/parted-devel
