Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from September 2011
On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 10:58 PM, Nicholas Clark <nick@ccl4.org> wrote:
> Possibly Jarkko. It came from him in commit 3609ea0df8ff1318. There's not
> much more detail in his e-mail:
>
> http://www.xray.mpe.mpg.de/mailing-lists/perl5-porters/2005-07/msg00923.html
>
> There is also this comment in the documentation:
>
> but the right POSIX moves (see below) are made with
> the POSIX::SigSet and POSIX::sigaction instead of accessing the %SIG.
I had already checked the commit and the comment, it was fairly unhelpful sadly.
>> *unsafe* signals? Does my second question answer my first? Why it has
>
> I'll guess that it's only really useful if one uses the SA_SIGINFO flag
> to get the extra info, and that (currently) only works with unsafe signals.
That was my best guess too, but it still doesn't make sense.
SA_SIGINFO is just as useful with ordinary signals, and unsafe signals
are just as dangerous.
>> this strange signal naming convention that differs from what the core
>> ($Config{sig_name}) uses? Why is this convention not documented? Why
>
> I don't see any POSIX RT signals in the list of signal names in config.sh
> on FreeBSD or OS X.
What about `kill -l`?
> I see some names on a Linux system, but they don't
> correspond to this comment in POSIX.pm
>
> # Allow (SIGRT)?MIN( + n)?, a common idiom when doing these things in C.
It's not that problematic that real time signals don't have
standardized names, but it is annoying.
>> it doesn't have tests? Has anyone ever used it for anything?
>
> As to the rest, I don't know. "Jarkko", or "ask Jarkko" are my best guess
> answers.
Yeah, I guess I'll have to do that.
Leon
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next