|
From: Nicholas N. <nj...@ca...> - 2003-11-17 10:38:26
|
On Sat, 15 Nov 2003, Avery Pennarun wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 06:20:14PM +0100, Dimitri Papadopoulos-Orfanos wrote:
>
> > >>==14433== Warning: attempt to set SIGKILL handler in __NR_sigaction.
> > >>==14433== Warning: attempt to set SIGSTOP handler in __NR_sigaction.
> >
> > Maybe the wording can be improved, so that "normal" programers can
> > understand it. For example by changing from:
> > attempt to set SIGKILL handler in __NR_sigaction.
> > to:
> > attempt to set a handler for SIGKILL signal.
> >
> > Also maybe this can be added to the FAQ. If even 'ls' emits such
> > warnings, I guess many other programs will emit them too.
>
> How about: "warning: attempt to set SIGKILL handler never has an effect"?
I just committed a change so it prints this:
Warning: ignored attempt to set SIGKILL handler in sigaction();
the SIGKILL signal is uncatchable
> Also, for programs that set the sighandler in a loop - apparently include ls
> on some systems - I bet they're usually *disabling* a special handler, ie.
> 'sa' is NULL in the code fragment below. It would probably give fewer
> spurious warnings if we just didn't print a warning when sa==NULL.
No. Valgrind doesn't print the warning when sa==NULL.
N
|