On 9 March 2015 at 20:19, Timothy Baldwin
<t.e.baldwi...@members.leeds.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> On 08/03/15 10:23, Peter Maydell wrote:
>>
>> On 8 March 2015 at 04:18, Timothy Baldwin
>> <t.e.baldwi...@members.leeds.ac.uk> wrote:
>>> if (set) {
>>> - bool has_sigsegv = sigismember(set, SIGSEGV);
>>> val = *set;
>>> temp = &val;
>>> -
>>> - sigdelset(temp, SIGSEGV);
>>> + int i;
>>
>> Variable declarations should go at the start of a block.
>
> It is, note the deleted lines.
Immediately preceding line is now "temp = &val;", which isn't
a declaration.
>> Rather than manually updating the ts->signal_mask for each
>> of the set/unblock/block operations (which is pretty ugly for
>> unblock), can we just use the third argument of the sigprocmask()
>> call we're making anyway to get the previous effective signal
>> mask into ts->signal_mask, and then fix up the SIGSEGV entry in it?
>
> No, that would be the old value
Oops, yes.
-- PMM
