From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 112490 invoked by alias); 24 Mar 2017 13:37:27 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 112478 invoked by uid 89); 24 Mar 2017 13:37:27 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=sk:austing, lol, door X-HELO: mail-wm0-f48.google.com Received: from mail-wm0-f48.google.com (HELO mail-wm0-f48.google.com) (74.125.82.48) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Fri, 24 Mar 2017 13:37:25 +0000 Received: by mail-wm0-f48.google.com with SMTP id n11so2496155wma.0 for ; Fri, 24 Mar 2017 06:37:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=+MlrLo4hTOE9AX1DN2xwDpJFMGhHmHoex0ojYkMg2ZA=; b=KwjVhXdxhzE8pKdUclIQFAaQ0dUwVpcBpcYA3xCFFUVKXyOefLNhjw0WJ1S0HcqnPo iGhvDuLEZ5C7hJYgbdQ0Ww/oETOJ8lQg1zfn9YBFkFaDdJ+W/L8pwzvUXtZCsulfsBYe JolTrC77oAql3gpNjOEs9PdHYDQ/dni4Tr3kA5ect0WYKnZB2aMIRJGzewFlEVlaH+/e jbax9ELwSoIOkWa+Cxp1nek3PN2A/f8Ph0diHnbNv/opHS8/N8uHkYf22JZHKOrydSZb n/xYc8aIwGiTnUGrh24wxg2RYPx1q8FeH+Rzl3V78jwOHVJK0IwW5vNqF74mmbb/BVW6 vzCA== X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H0RI455XqcBqUgXsZVL8lX7RDex0SSwVBe3NdKV92RI0d2ewA9rAYWLHtEduo3X+MmJ X-Received: by 10.28.207.14 with SMTP id f14mr3056080wmg.72.1490362644861; Fri, 24 Mar 2017 06:37:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.0.101] ([37.189.166.198]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id n80sm215598wrb.24.2017.03.24.06.37.23 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 24 Mar 2017 06:37:23 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix invalid sigprocmask call To: Yousong Zhou References: <1490324519-11228-1-git-send-email-yszhou4tech@gmail.com> <2b0bab84-e36e-e109-5444-dc84369dddce@redhat.com> <39f28782-65e8-0f52-3c8f-134a6f05788b@redhat.com> Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, musl@lists.openwall.com, Rich Felker From: Pedro Alves Message-ID: <306c1ba1-db66-f55f-3ab7-3b3eefd4564c@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 13:37:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2017-03/txt/msg00439.txt.bz2 On 03/24/2017 01:05 PM, Yousong Zhou wrote: > On 24 March 2017 at 20:55, Pedro Alves wrote: >> The standard wasn't built on a vacuum. It starts by ratifying common >> implementation behavior. If no historical implementation behaves like what >> you're suggesting, what's the point of enforcing that, when it's clearly >> NOT the intent? You're just causing porting pain for no good reason. >> Please file a bug against the standard to have the error section clarified instead. > > Lol, now I will consider the idea of bumping the door of POSIX committee ;) No need. Go here: http://austingroupbugs.net/ > I am cc-ing musl-libc list now. Original thread here: https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2017-03/msg00426.html Thanks, Pedro Alves