Re: [dev] [PATCH] dwm -- Proper SIGCHLD usage , fix issue with uncollected processes

Premysl Hruby --> dev (2009-08-12 17:39:26 +0200):
> On (12/08/09 17:24), Jukka Salmi wrote:
[...]
> > Seems fine, but -- assuming POSIX.1 reliable signals -- you don't need
> > to reestablish the handler before returning from it. Or should systems
> > with the old semantics really be supported by dwm?
> >
>
> According to POSIX, if the signal is blocked after sighandler or not is
> undefined. In case of Linux and GLibc it depends on version of Glibc and
> -std etc... (read man 2 signal, section Portability).

Ok, you really referred to the old signal(2) semantics. I took for
granted that signal(3) was implemented by using sigaction(2) (as it is
on at least NetBSD). dwm should use sigaction instead of signal...

Regards, Jukka

-- 
This email fills a much-needed gap in the archives.