This is the mail archive of the cygwin-developers mailing list for the Cygwin project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: src/winsup/cygwin ChangeLog include/cygwin/sig ...


On Oct 26 17:59, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Oct 26 16:46, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > On Oct 26 08:41, Eric Blake wrote:
> > > On 10/26/2012 03:21 AM, corinna@cygwin.com wrote:
> > > > CVSROOT:	/cvs/src
> > > > Module name:	src
> > > > Changes by:	corinna@sourceware.org	2012-10-26 09:21:49
> > > > 
> > > > Modified files:
> > > > 	winsup/cygwin  : ChangeLog 
> > > > 	winsup/cygwin/include/cygwin: signal.h 
> > > > 
> > > > Log message:
> > > > 	* include/cygwin/signal.h (sigset_t): Define here.
> > > 
> > > >  
> > > > +typedef __uint32_t sigset_t;
> > > 
> > > Are there plans to widen this to 64 bits for 64-bit cygwin, so that we
> > > can finally implement real-time signals as required by POSIX?
> > 
> > Look at the end of
> > 
> > http://sourceware.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/src/winsup/cygwin/include/cygwin/signal.h.diff?cvsroot=src&only_with_tag=cygwin-64bit-branch&r1=1.19.4.1&r2=1.19.4.2
> > 
> > ABI changes galore, just as with time_t.  Somebody has to... well, you
> > know.
> 
> Oh btw.
> 
> Linux defines all signals beyond SIGRTMIN as RT signals.  Do we follow
> the lead or is there some good reason to restrict the number of RT
> signals to keep space for later extensions?

I see one signal in Linux which we don't have yet, SIGSTKFLT.  Is it
worth to keep space for that?


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]