Carlo Marcelo Arenas Belón <carenas@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> Hmph. Wouldn't it a much smaller change and fix to discard 2/3 and >> most of the 3/3 and instead make a siginterrupt() call to tell the >> system to interrupt us when SIGCHLD is received only on platforms >> where siginterrupt() is available? Use of sigaction() does not seem >> to be buying us anything for the purpose of this series. > > Using siginterrupt() would work (at least it did when I tested it in > OpenBSD), but its use is discouraged as it has been obsoleted by the > last two versions of POSIX (since 2018). OK, but it feels a bit funny to base the conditional compilation to use sigaction() (as opposed to signal()) on a symbol whose name was derived from that deprecated interface, doesn't it, then? > Most systems seem to be implementing `signal()` with `sigaction()` > nowadays, but in the ones that are not (ex: Solaris) calling the later > to get a `struct sigaction` with the flags being used, doesn't work > and therefore it would seem, that the only way to do this reliably is > by using sigaction everywhere for this signal, as implemented in 2/3. Still the many #ifdef's sprinkled all over looked really ugly. Can we abstract this out a bit better? Thanks.
