FreeBSD-5.1 problem identified

[edscott wilson garcia]

On mi? 2003-08-06 at 17:24, Olivier Fourdan wrote:
> Edscott,
> 
> Please don't. It's not logical IMO. If freeBSD 5.1 supports sigaction
> then one should expect it to work. If it doesn't work, then fix FreeBSD.
> 

OK. 

> If it doesn't support sigaction, then AC_CHECK_FUNCS([sigaction]) should
> return false and then we can safely fallback to old style signal().
> 

Checked that, but it returns true. The 5.1 problem does not show in
4.4-4.8. 

> What you seem to say is that sigaction is some kind of a stub in FreeBSD
> 5.1 which sounds very surprising...

I wish I knew what the exact problem is. All I know is that signal works
and sigaction does not in one particular case in libs/tubo.c after a
process fork.

> 
> It needs some more investigation I think.
> 

I'll try to dig a bit deeper to see if I can find anything.

regards,

Edscott

> Cheers,
> Olivier.
> 
> On Wed, 2003-08-06 at 20:47, edscott wilson garcia wrote:
> > On mi? 2003-08-06 at 13:34, edscott wilson garcia wrote:
> > 
> > > 
> > > If anybody has a powerful reason why I should not fix them as well, I
> > > will go ahead and do so in a few hours.
> > 
> > That does not look right. Maybe a triple negative: 
> > If nobody *does not* have a powerful reason why I should not fix them as
> > well, I will go ahead and do so in a few hours.
> > 
> > > 
> > > regards
> > > 
> > > Edscott
> > > 
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Xfce4-dev mailing list
> > > Xfce4-dev at xfce.org
> > > http://moongroup.com/mailman/listinfo/xfce4-dev
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Xfce4-dev mailing list
> > Xfce4-dev at xfce.org
> > http://moongroup.com/mailman/listinfo/xfce4-dev