> > If others agree that adding this crutch is worthwhile > > Yes, I'm in favour of this new module.
Just because a module is present doesn't mean I have to use it; so I am not opposed to adding the module now that others have expressed interest in in (the note in posix-functions/siginterrupt.texi about recommending sigaction over siginterrupt is enough of a reminder for me, anyways). > > > + if (sigaction (sig, NULL, &act) < 0) > > + return -1; > > > > POSIX ignores sigaction failure here, rather than returning -1. > > That's an instance of bad coding practice. In other words, is it worth trying to write the siginterrupt.m4 macro to detect if any vendors have a buggy siginterrupt implementation, where copying the POSIX example mishandles sigaction failure, in order to pick up our better coding practice? Or is it something that can only be detected with valgrind? Also, should we try to give feedback to the POSIX folks suggesting how they can beef up their samples? -- Eric Blake -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Re%3A-Buildreport-for-GnuTLS-2.8.3-tp25008027p25015880.html Sent from the Gnulib mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
