On Thu, 28 Mar 2024 15:28:00 -0700
Guy Harris wrote:
> On Mar 28, 2024, at 2:19 PM, Denis Ovsienko
> wrote:
>
> > Yes, AIX and Haiku sometimes make portability issues manifest.
>
> And, in this case, Solaris doesn't have SIGINFO, either; SunOS
> 0.x-4.x didn't have it, as BSD hadn't picked
On Mar 28, 2024, at 2:19 PM, Denis Ovsienko wrote:
> Yes, AIX and Haiku sometimes make portability issues manifest.
And, in this case, Solaris doesn't have SIGINFO, either; SunOS 0.x-4.x didn't
have it, as BSD hadn't picked it up, and they didn't pass it along to be put
into SVR4, so it's not
On Thu, 28 Mar 2024 12:44:29 -0700
Guy Harris wrote:
> > [--siginfo=] (on platforms with SIGINFO only)
[...]
> so I suspect few, if any, UN*Xes have, or had, SIGINFO without also
> having SIGUSR1 and SIGUSR2.
Thank you for providing the historic background. The above was
supposed to mean
On Mar 28, 2024, at 3:01 AM, Denis Ovsienko wrote:
> There is a rather old pull request at [1], which was supposed to make
> use of the then-unused SIGUSR2, but whilst it was waiting, another pull
> request used the signal for another code path.
>
> There is a potential way to manage this kind
Hello all.
There is a rather old pull request at [1], which was supposed to make
use of the then-unused SIGUSR2, but whilst it was waiting, another pull
request used the signal for another code path.
There is a potential way to manage this kind of contention by
naming the available actions and
