[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: sigaction, SA_SIGINFO, and SIG_IGN
From: |
Bruno Haible |
Subject: |
Re: sigaction, SA_SIGINFO, and SIG_IGN |
Date: |
Sun, 22 Jun 2008 21:58:22 +0200 |
User-agent: |
KMail/1.5.4 |
I don't understand the "Due to autoconf conventions". We are not using
HAVE_SIGACTION as a #define in config.h. We are using it as a shell variable.
This shell variable is not set by either AC_REPLACE_FUNCS([sigaction])
nor by AC_CHECK_TYPE(...). So there is no conflict.
Proposed comment change:
*** lib/signal.in.h.orig 2008-06-22 21:55:31.000000000 +0200
--- lib/signal.in.h 2008-06-22 21:55:10.000000000 +0200
***************
*** 118,126 ****
typedef struct siginfo_t siginfo_t;
# endif /* address@hidden@ */
! /* Due to autoconf conventions, we can't tell if HAVE_SIGACTION
! means we have the type or means we have the function. We assume
! that all implementations either have both or neither. */
struct sigaction
{
--- 118,125 ----
typedef struct siginfo_t siginfo_t;
# endif /* address@hidden@ */
! /* We assume that platforms which lack the sigaction() function also lack
! the 'struct sigaction' type, and vice versa. */
struct sigaction
{
*** m4/sigaction.m4.orig 2008-06-22 21:55:31.000000000 +0200
--- m4/sigaction.m4 2008-06-22 21:55:10.000000000 +0200
***************
*** 8,16 ****
AC_DEFUN([gl_SIGACTION],
[
AC_REQUIRE([gl_SIGNAL_H_DEFAULTS])
- dnl Due to autoconf conventions, we can't tell if HAVE_SIGACTION
- dnl means we have the type or means we have the function. We assume
- dnl that all implementations either have both or neither.
AC_REPLACE_FUNCS([sigaction])
if test $ac_cv_func_sigaction = no ; then
HAVE_SIGACTION=0
--- 8,13 ----
- Re: Interix, (continued)
- Re: Interix, Bruno Haible, 2008/06/19
- Re: sigaction, SA_SIGINFO, and SIG_IGN, Paul Eggert, 2008/06/19
- Re: sigaction, SA_SIGINFO, and SIG_IGN, Bruno Haible, 2008/06/19
- Re: sigaction, SA_SIGINFO, and SIG_IGN, Paul Eggert, 2008/06/20
- Re: sigaction, SA_SIGINFO, and SIG_IGN, Eric Blake, 2008/06/20
- Re: sigaction, SA_SIGINFO, and SIG_IGN, Bruno Haible, 2008/06/20
- Re: sigaction, SA_SIGINFO, and SIG_IGN, Eric Blake, 2008/06/21
- Re: sigaction, SA_SIGINFO, and SIG_IGN, Bruno Haible, 2008/06/22
- Re: sigaction, SA_SIGINFO, and SIG_IGN, Bruno Haible, 2008/06/22
- Re: sigaction, SA_SIGINFO, and SIG_IGN, Bruno Haible, 2008/06/22
- Re: sigaction, SA_SIGINFO, and SIG_IGN,
Bruno Haible <=
- Re: sigaction, SA_SIGINFO, and SIG_IGN, Eric Blake, 2008/06/23
- Re: sigaction, SA_SIGINFO, and SIG_IGN, Bruno Haible, 2008/06/22
- Re: sigaction, SA_SIGINFO, and SIG_IGN, Bruno Haible, 2008/06/22
- Re: sigaction, SA_SIGINFO, and SIG_IGN, Eric Blake, 2008/06/23
- Re: sigaction, SA_SIGINFO, and SIG_IGN, Eric Blake, 2008/06/23
- Re: sigaction, SA_SIGINFO, and SIG_IGN, Bruno Haible, 2008/06/23
POSIX in docs [was: RFC: sigaction module], Eric Blake, 2008/06/17