"brian m. carlson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > As for the signal numbers, different architectures have different signal > numbers. See signal(7), but the most common ones *are* identical. > However, signals such as SIGUSR1 and SIGUSR2 are not, and using a number > for these will break on at least alpha, mips, mipsel, and sparc[1]. > Using names is not only more portable, it is more explicit. Everyone > knows what SIGABRT does, but not everyone knows what signal 4 does. > Think of using signal numbers as using magic numbers: it's a bad > programming practice.
I'm personally leaning towards modifying Policy to say that XSI extensions are permitted for kill and trap, which not only allows a very specific set of numeric signals but also allows kill -1 instead of kill -s 1. The one remaining problem is that some scripts (libtool, I think) trap SIGPIPE by number, which is not one of the XSI-allowed numeric signals. I'm not sure if we should make an additional special exception. Cc'd to the relevant Policy bug. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
