Patches item #1178217, was opened at 2005-04-06 21:40
Message generated for change (Comment added) made by lschiere
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=300235&aid=1178217&group_id=235
Category: None
Group: None
>Status: Closed
>Resolution: Accepted
Priority: 5
Submitted By: Richard Laager (rlaager)
Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody)
Summary: [HEAD] Signal Short Circuiting
Initial Comment:
The following log snippets should explain it:
(20:24:00) rlaager: Regarding the signal handling
conversation the other day... I've written a patch to stop
calling signal handlers and return as soon as we find one
signal handler that returns TRUE to indicate that it's
handled the signal. Is this the right approach?
(20:24:22) Ethan Blanton (Paco-Paco): the trouble is that it's
documented to behave exactly the way it does
(20:24:31) Ethan Blanton (Paco-Paco): so changing it is
notbackwards compatible
(20:24:31) rlaager: I'm talking for HEAD.
(20:24:41) Ethan Blanton (Paco-Paco): oh, I think that's a
good approach, yes
(20:24:53) rlaager: The way I've described is how I
*expected* it to work, having not read the documentation.
(20:25:09) Ethan Blanton (Paco-Paco): I'm convinced
(20:27:04) Stu Tomlinson (nosnilmot): rlaager: this, I
assume, breaks the generic-ness of signals, by assuming
that any that return values return booleans?
(20:27:26) Ethan Blanton (Paco-Paco): please break it
(20:27:33) Ethan Blanton (Paco-Paco): we already have
out-parameters
(20:27:42) rlaager: nosnilmot: from what I can see, the
return type is handled as a (void *)... so I'm checking that
ret_value != NULL
(20:27:57) rlaager: nosnilmot: that's the correct way to do it,
right?
...
(20:29:01) Ethan Blanton (Paco-Paco): allowing a
meaningful return value is an over-engineering
(20:30:07) rlaager: even after this patch, you should be able
to return meaningful return values
(20:30:15) rlaager: it'll just short-circuit on the first handler
that does
----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Comment By: Luke Schierer (lschiere)
Date: 2005-04-07 10:55
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=28833
thanks
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=300235&aid=1178217&group_id=235
|
