httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chuck Murcko <ch...@telebase.com>
Subject Re: SIGACTION patch
Date Sun, 12 May 1996 10:04:15 GMT
Jim Jagielski liltingly intones:
> 
> Ben Laurie wrote:
> > 
> > Jim Jagielski wrote:
> > > 
> > > Here's a sigaction patch that should patch cleanly against the current
> > > CVS tree. I added a compile define in case some systems don't have or need
> > > to use sigaction() over signal():
> > 
> > I don't understand why my patch didn't patch cleanly ... it was diffed against
> > the current tree. Strange.
> > 
> > Anyway, do I gather from the tenor of these notes that the patch works? (I find
> > it slightly surprising since I'd have thought that those platforms that
> > supported sigaction would just implement signal in terms of it but I was
> > clutching at straws!).
> > 
> 
> It works here, but then again, signal() worked as well.
> 
It works here, consistently, on BSDI, IRIX, and UnixWarez 1.x, but I'm still
waiting to hear from someone who's tried it on UWarez 2.x. OTOH, it can't
work any worse there than signal(). 8^)

Couldn't we key the #if defined off some POSIX indication? Isn't sigaction()
one of those, uh, POSIX things?

chuck
Chuck Murcko	N2K Inc.	Wayne PA	chuck@telebase.com
And now, on a lighter note:
A Riverside, California, health ordinance states that two persons may
not kiss each other without first wiping their lips with carbolized
rosewater.

Mime
View raw message