Re: new module 'sigprocmask'

[Paul Eggert]

Bruno Haible <address@hidden> writes:

> + /* Set of currently blocked and pending signals.  */
> + static volatile char pending_array[NSIG] /* = { 0 } */;

Surely this should be sig_atomic_t rather than char?

> + int
> + sigfillset (sigset_t *set)
> + {
> +   *set = -2U << (NSIG - 1);

This doesn't look right to me, as it clears the set.

I'm not a Windows expert, so I'm not sure how well the race conditions
will work out, but I assume that is a known issue.