[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <emc179d218-6e77-465e-8999-3df669670fa1@elzian>
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2021 17:11:11 +0000
From: "Laurent Bercot" <ska-dietlibc@...rnet.org>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Bug in src/signal/block.c
>> succeed since _NSIG will be 128 instead of 129.
I happen to be in the process of updating my programming library
performing workarounds for badly-specified parts of POSIX and related
functions.
NSIG is one of those parts. It is not specified by POSIX, but it is
useful to have a walkable (as in, not 8*sizeof(sigset_t)) upper bound
for the number of signals on a system.
But NSIG is badly specified even across the systems where it exists.
On glibc, it is 1 + the highest signal number. On FreeBSD and OpenBSD
at least, it is the highest signal number.
musl appears to align on glibc; I suppose the value for MIPS will be
updated to 129, for consistency.
Can I assume that if NSIG is defined, it is strictly greater than the
highest signal number, except on the BSDs which are an unfortunate
exception, as they too often are?
--
Laurent
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
