On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 07:05:23PM +0100, Richard Braun wrote: > On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 09:54:24AM -0500, Rich Felker wrote: > > This is the THIRD time I've told you that blocking SIGCHLD rather than > > ignoring it is non-conformant, and I provided the relevant citation > > (link and quoted): > > > > The system() function shall ignore the SIGINT and SIGQUIT signals, > > and shall block the SIGCHLD signal, while waiting for the command > > to terminate. If this might cause the application to miss a signal > > that would have killed it, then the application should examine the > > return value from system() and take whatever action is appropriate > > to the application if the command terminated due to receipt of a > > signal. > > > > http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/system.html > > Last cordial message before "coding under the influence" accusations : > > How can you read "shall block the SIGCHLD signal" and understand > "blocking SIGCHLD rather than ignoring it is non-conformant" ? Please be > very specific as I really don't get your point here.
OK, I'm dyslexic or something and somehow permuted the signal names every time I read it. Sorry. I think your approach probably works, but it also means system() is completely unsafe to use in multi-threaded programs that handle SIGCHLD... Rich _______________________________________________ uClibc mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/uclibc
