From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-41915-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 9464 invoked by alias); 9 Dec 2005 18:51:49 -0000
Received: (qmail 9457 invoked by uid 22791); 9 Dec 2005 18:51:48 -0000
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from gandalf.inter.net.il (HELO gandalf.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.17)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 09 Dec 2005 18:51:47 +0000
Received: from nitzan.inter.net.il (nitzan.inter.net.il [192.114.186.20]) 	by gandalf.inter.net.il (MOS 3.7.1-GA) 	with ESMTP id HFH30011; 	Fri, 9 Dec 2005 20:51:23 +0200 (IST)
Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-80-230-152-80.inter.net.il [80.230.152.80]) 	by nitzan.inter.net.il (MOS 3.7.2-GA) 	with ESMTP id CEL95173 (AUTH halo1); 	Fri, 9 Dec 2005 20:51:22 +0200 (IST)
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 01:20:00 -0000
Message-Id: <uhd9ije8k.fsf@gnu.org>
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
In-reply-to: <20051209144651.GA12425@nevyn.them.org> (message from Daniel 	Jacobowitz on Fri, 9 Dec 2005 09:46:51 -0500)
Subject: Re: [linux] Always ignore restart/cancellation signals
Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
References: <20051208142420.GA21882@nevyn.them.org> <200512081950.jB8Jo9im029464@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20051208133824.24b4c680@ironwood.lan> <20051208204301.GA29490@nevyn.them.org> <uzmnajxuh.fsf@gnu.org> <20051209143451.GA11917@nevyn.them.org> <ulkyujpof.fsf@gnu.org> <20051209144651.GA12425@nevyn.them.org>
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2005-12/txt/msg00178.txt.bz2

> Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2005 09:46:51 -0500
> From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
> 
> On Fri, Dec 09, 2005 at 04:44:16PM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > > Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2005 09:34:52 -0500
> > > From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
> > > 
> > > The problem is that an application may want to register handlers for "a
> > > few" realtime signals.  It seems common to count up from SIGRTMIN, so
> > > SIGRTMIN is made a runtime constant that skips those signals belonging
> > > to the implementation.
> > 
> > Does this mean that ``constants aren't'', like the old joke says?
> 
> Precisely!  Directly above the bit Kevin quoted:
> 
> #define SIGRTMIN        (__libc_current_sigrtmin ())
> #define SIGRTMAX        (__libc_current_sigrtmax ())

Then we should probably use these instead.