Re: [MiNT] proposed change in signal handling

[Paul Wratt <paul.wratt@gmail.com>]

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 2:26 AM, Alan Hourihane <alanh@fairlite.co.uk> wrote:
> On 10/17/11 13:58, Peter Persson wrote:
>> 2011/10/17 Alan Hourihane <alanh@fairlite.co.uk>:
>>
>>> I don't see any mention of SA_SIGACTION and sa_action on my Linux box.
>>> Can't we follow some natural convention here, as you mention other
>>> unixoids, which ones ?
>> My bad; was supposed to be SA_SIGINFO and (struct
>> sigaction).sa_sigaction. Slight mixup inside my head.
>>
>
> O.k. that's better :-)
>
>> From the top of my head, the unixiods I was thinking about were:
>>  - linux
>>  - darwin
>>  - freebsd
>>  - openbsd
>>  - qnx
>> ... and most likely others too (just google '<some unixoid> sigaction()')
>>
>> The convention for sigaction() should naturally match that of any other unixoid.
>> There seems to be no reliable standard for the context structure in
>> the signal handler however, it's system- and CPU-specific.
>
> That's fine. Looking forward to seeing a patch !
>
> Alan.
>
same..