On 8/1/05, Jesper Juhl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm not quite sure you are right Ulrich. Given this little bit from
> SUSv3 about SA_RESTART in the page describing sigaction (
> http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/functions/sigaction.html
> ) :
It's not an official SA_RESTART since
On 8/1/05, Dave Airlie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > However, there is in fact no bug here. The test program is just wrong.
> > sigwait returns zero or an error number, as POSIX specifies. Conversely,
> > sigtimedwait and sigwaitinfo either return 0 or set errno and return -1.
> > It is odd
> But sigwait is not a function specified with an EINTR error number.
> As I said before, this does not mean that EINTR cannot be returned.
> But it will create havoc among programs and it causes undefined
> behavior wrt to SA_RESTART. I think it is best to not have any
> function for which
On 7/31/05, Roland McGrath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> However, there is in fact no bug here. The test program is just wrong.
> sigwait returns zero or an error number, as POSIX specifies.
No question, no error is detected incorrectly.
But sigwait is not a function specified with an EINTR
On 7/31/05, Roland McGrath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
However, there is in fact no bug here. The test program is just wrong.
sigwait returns zero or an error number, as POSIX specifies.
No question, no error is detected incorrectly.
But sigwait is not a function specified with an EINTR error
But sigwait is not a function specified with an EINTR error number.
As I said before, this does not mean that EINTR cannot be returned.
But it will create havoc among programs and it causes undefined
behavior wrt to SA_RESTART. I think it is best to not have any
function for which EINTR is
On 8/1/05, Dave Airlie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
However, there is in fact no bug here. The test program is just wrong.
sigwait returns zero or an error number, as POSIX specifies. Conversely,
sigtimedwait and sigwaitinfo either return 0 or set errno and return -1.
It is odd that the
On 8/1/05, Jesper Juhl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not quite sure you are right Ulrich. Given this little bit from
SUSv3 about SA_RESTART in the page describing sigaction (
http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/functions/sigaction.html
) :
It's not an official SA_RESTART since the
>
> However, there is in fact no bug here. The test program is just wrong.
> sigwait returns zero or an error number, as POSIX specifies. Conversely,
> sigtimedwait and sigwaitinfo either return 0 or set errno and return -1.
> It is odd that the interfaces of related functions differ in this
The problem is not really "when straced", but when strace attaches. In
fact, it's not even "when PTRACE_ATTACH'd". It's actually the implicit
SIGSTOP that PTRACE_ATTACH causes. If you simply suspend and resume the
program (with SIGSTOP or C-z), you get the same result. So this report is
more
The problem is not really when straced, but when strace attaches. In
fact, it's not even when PTRACE_ATTACH'd. It's actually the implicit
SIGSTOP that PTRACE_ATTACH causes. If you simply suspend and resume the
program (with SIGSTOP or C-z), you get the same result. So this report is
more
However, there is in fact no bug here. The test program is just wrong.
sigwait returns zero or an error number, as POSIX specifies. Conversely,
sigtimedwait and sigwaitinfo either return 0 or set errno and return -1.
It is odd that the interfaces of related functions differ in this way,
12 matches
Mail list logo
