Re: Never mind. Re: Signal left blocked after signal handler.

Bruce Perens
2003-11-26T19:05:04Z

What happened is that I attempted to simplify the test code to send to
you, and simplified out the problem by using
kill() instead of causing a fault. :-)

It's just what you describe here:

>One difference in 2.4.x and 2.6.x is the signal blocking wrt blocked
>signals that are _forced_ (ie anything that is thread-synchronous, like a
>SIGSEGV/SIGTRAP/SIGBUS that happens as a result of a fault):
>
> - in 2.4.x they will just punch through the block
> - in 2.6.x they will refuse to punch through a blocked signal, but
> since they can't be delivered they will cause the process to be
> killed
>
>
The behavior of 2.4 seems to be the same used by some dozens of Unix
systems upon which my confidence test passed.

I agree that we should not be wrong in the same way as everyone else,
and wonder if POSIX says anything about this. I could have been the only
one using this "feature".

Thanks

Bruce