[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#9076: coreutils-8.12 uses SA_RESETHAND and SA_RESTART unconditionall
bug#9076: coreutils-8.12 uses SA_RESETHAND and SA_RESTART unconditionally
Fri, 15 Jul 2011 11:28:33 +0100
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:220.127.116.11) Gecko/20100227 Thunderbird/3.0.3
On 15/07/11 08:50, Paul Eggert wrote:
> On 07/14/11 17:25, Pádraig Brady wrote:
>> I'm not sure about defining these to 0 in gnulib.
>> That will silently ignore the intent of a program on certain platforms.
>> Wouldn't it be better to fail to compile so that each program then does:
>> #ifndef SA_RESETHAND
>> /* do something else */
> Well, as a matter of style, I prefer this:
> if (! SA_RESETHAND)
> do_something_else ();
> as that's much more likely to detect bitrot in the "do something else"
Absolutely. What I was getting was that it's probably better to leave
the following to the app too:
# define SA_RESETHAND 0
/* Now the app writer knows they need to handle this case */
Otherwise new users of sigaction() or whatever may not be aware
of portability issues. They're all documented, but they're too
easy to miss there IMHO.
> (Of course this is all assuming the application writer knows
> about platforms where SA_RESETHAND isn't implemented.)
> On NonStop, if you invoke signal(), it uses the SA_RESETHAND semantics
> (POSIX allows this). Conversely, if you invoke sigaction(), NonStop
> always behaves as if SA_RESTART and SA_RESETHAND are zero, i.e., it
> doesn't support either feature with sigaction.
Thanks for checking that.
> I just now checked coreutils. Two programs use SA_RESETHAND. The
> first (csplit) is clearly using it incorrectly, and won't work
> properly on any host that implements SA_RESETHAND according to POSIX.
> The second (dd) is using the above idiom already, that is, it is
> assuming SA_RESETHAND is #defined to 0 on hosts that don't support it.
> (It has some obsolete comments though, that need fixing.)
> Conversely, the two programs that depend on SA_RESTART will
> probably misbehave if a signal interrupts a system call on
> NonStop. I see no easy fix for this, and I expect the gnulib
> change may be the best we can do.
Again, that gnulib change would only paper over the issue.
bug#9076: coreutils-8.12 uses SA_RESETHAND and SA_RESTART unconditionally, Bruno Haible, 2011/07/15