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. LeonThread Previous | Thread Next