Re: glibc-bsd questions
2012/6/25 Steven Chamberlain <email@example.com>:
> Do we define SIGCANCEL as __SIGRTMIN?
No, you're looking at the wrong code. Our SIGCANCEL definition is in
> If so, having redefined __SIGRTMIN from 32 to the awkward number 65,
> does that not cause problems when trying to mask it?
It shouldn't. For us SIGCANCEL is a constant number (33).
> "At least inside __start_helper_thread __sigprocmask() should be used"
> Does it matter that sigprocmask actually got used and not __sigprocmask?
Functionally it doesn't matter. It's just a linking detail (private
symbol vs public symbol).
> Maybe they are the same thing. But I suspect there is/was an
> implementation of that function which refuses to block SIGCANCEL (same
> as pthread_sigmask), and another one that does.
Why do you think that? AFAIK both are kernel call stubs.