Andrew Bennetts <s...@users.sourceforge.net> added the comment: > I'm not exactly sure how we will know if it is expected to fail, > though. I don't think `HAVE_SIGACTION` is exposed nicely to Python > right now.
It might be useful to have the contents of pyconfig.h exposed as a dict somehow. Maybe call it sys._pyconfig_h? A less ambitious change would be to expose just HAVE_SIGACTION as e.g. signal._have_sigaction. I agree with r.david.murray that we probably don't need to bother unless a buildbot or someone reports that this test fails. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue8354> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
