Let me know if I should take this off list now since it's probably reached
its limit of interest for most people.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
}> I figured it was just using the default action for these signals. So, am
}> I mistaken in thinking that SIG_BLOCK was supposed to ignore those signals
}>
On Tue, 5 Feb 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Thanks, Dan. (I saw your name come up in the archives next to a lot of
> threads/signals posts while I was looking for an answer to this so I
> wondered if you'd answer. :-)
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> }> However, it seems that signals such as SIG
callum writes:
}handlers to be installed for them. Hmm, it's a lot more verbose calling
}sigaction for every signal rather than a single pthread_sigmask call.
}I guess that's why we have for loops.
Doh! You can specify a set of signals with sigaction. Sorry about that.
C
(c)2002 Callum Gibs
Thanks, Dan. (I saw your name come up in the archives next to a lot of
threads/signals posts while I was looking for an answer to this so I
wondered if you'd answer. :-)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
}> However, it seems that signals such as SIGPIPE, SIGINT, etc will still
}> kill the process. I also
On Tue, 5 Feb 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi all,
> I have an application which attempts to block all signals using
> pthread_sigmask(). I'm aware that this only works on the current thread,
> however this call occurs before any other threads are created and so
> should be inherited. I call it
5 matches
Mail list logo
