On 26/06/2025 14:15, Carlo Marcelo Arenas Belón wrote:
On Thu, Jun 26, 2025 at 01:52:47PM -0800, Phillip Wood wrote:
On 26/06/2025 09:53, Carlo Marcelo Arenas Belón via GitGitGadget wrote:
From: =?UTF-8?q?Carlo=20Marcelo=20Arenas=20Bel=C3=B3n?= <carenas@xxxxxxxxx>
A future change will start using sigaction to setup a SIGCHLD signal
handler.
The current code uses signal() which returns SIG_ERR (but doesn't
seem to set errno) so instruct sigaction() to do the same.
Why are we returning -1 below instead of SIG_ERR if we want the behavior to
match?
By "match", I mean that in both cases we will get an error return value
and errno won't be set to EINVAL (which is what POSIX requires)
In our codebase since we ignore the return code anyway, it wouldn't make
a difference, either way.
signal() returns a pointer, and sigaction() returns and int,
Oh right, I'd forgotten they have different return types. I think we
should probably be setting errno = EINVAL before returning -1 to match
what this function does with other signals it does not support - just
because our current callers ignore the return value doesn't mean that
future callers will and they might want check errno if they see the
function fail.
Thanks
Phillip
so you can
have the later be literally SIG_ERR, eventhough it will be ironically
equivalent it casted into an int.
Csrlo
