Re: RFC: removing old-style "signal" handling code

[Paul Eggert]

Jim Meyering <address@hidden> writes:

> Maybe we can finally excise the crufty code in those #else blocks.
> Do any of you know of a "reasonable porting target" :-) that does
> not define SA_NOCLDSTOP?

Neither Debian stable nor Solaris 10 defines SA_NOCLDSTOP if you
compile with gcc -ansi.  This is because the C Standard doesn't allow
the implementation to declare SA_NOCLDSTOP in <signal.h>, due to name
space considerations.  One could easily argue that this is simply a
botch in the standard, but it's a common enough botch that I expect
we'll run into it.