At Thu, 2 Sep 2010 19:52:42 -0700 (PDT), Roland McGrath wrote: > > > Do you mean that there is some code relying on these Hurd semantics, and > > that therefore we should not try to change them to match POSIX, except > > maybe when the pthread functions are used? > > I mean the semantics are the semantics and have been for 15+ years, and we > can't assume it's OK to just go changing them and call it a "fix". POSIX > only specifies anything about any kind of multithreadedness when pthread > functions are used.
What's going to break? I suspect that the software that relies on the Hurd's signal semantics (if any) is software that is directly related to the Hurd and developed by Hurd people. As such, it should be relatively easy to fix and to have those fixes integrated; I see no convincing reason to not adopt POSIX/Linux signal semantics and abandon Hurd signal semantics. Thanks, Neal
