> Surely this fix is completely wrong? You'd have to touch every use of
> signum() to do it like that. You'd also be introducing similarly-
> undefined behavior at the other end of the loop, where this coding
> would be asking to compute 1<<31, hence shifting into the sign bit,
> which is undefin
Aleksander Alekseev writes:
> sigmask macro is defined in win32.h like this:
> #define sigmask(sig) ( 1 << ((sig)-1) )
> And used in signal.c in this fashion:
> for (i = 0; i < PG_SIGNAL_COUNT; i++)
> if (exec_mask & sigmask(i))
> Thus during first iteration we are doing `<<
Hello
sigmask macro is defined in win32.h like this:
```
#define sigmask(sig) ( 1 << ((sig)-1) )
```
And used in signal.c in this fashion:
```
for (i = 0; i < PG_SIGNAL_COUNT; i++)
{
if (exec_mask & sigmask(i))
{
```
Thus during first iteration we are do
