> > If I split sigaction(), sigsuspend(), sigpending(), sigprocmask() and > sigaltstack() into front-end and back-end pieces a-la NetBSD so that > emulator-specific signal semantics can be imposed without totally > duplicating those routines inside the emulator (like I did with > sendit() and recvit() for socket I/O), will anyone complain?
I'd second Garrett on this; as long as it's documented somewhere that the *1 routines are the "backends", it sounds eminently sensible. -- \\ Sometimes you're ahead, \\ Mike Smith \\ sometimes you're behind. \\ m...@smith.net.au \\ The race is long, and in the \\ msm...@freebsd.org \\ end it's only with yourself. \\ msm...@cdrom.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
