Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 13:37:24 +0000 (GMT)
From: Ghanshyam <gshyam AT denver DOT india DOT mentorg DOT com>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: RE:RE: 1.5.5.1 posix conformance for sigaction()
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10403251336200.4671-100000@denver.india.mentorg.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII


hi,

Thanks for your attention. But I found the second result (two SIGCHLD) in
both the cases. I m using the cygwin version 1.5.5.1 

Thanks,
Ghanshyam

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christopher Faylor
[mailto:cgf-no-personal-reply-please AT cygwin DOT com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 10:13 PM
> To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
> Subject: Re: 1.5.5.1 posix conformance for sigaction()
> 
> On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 08:24:34PM +0000, Ghanshyam wrote:
> >Hi all,
> >
> >I found some problem in sigaction() system call with respect to
following
> >assertions defined in IEEE std 2003.1 -1992 Test methods for measuring
> >conformance to POSIX-part1 document: When I run NIST-PCTS test suite on
> >cygwin the following assertion failed.
> >
> >14(C) 	If the behavior associated with {_POSIX_JOB_CONTROL} is
> supported:
> >	When sig is SIGCHLD and the SA_NOCLDSTOP flag is set in sa_flags,
> then a
> >	call to sigaction(sig, act, oact) results in a SIGCHLD signal not
> >	being generated for the parent process whenever any of its child
> >	processes stop.
> >
> >********** SIGCHLD signal received by parent process when SIGSTOP
signal
> >is send to child process!
> 
> I have employed a patented method that I have devised called "a simple
> test case" to determine if your claim is true or not.
> 
> #include <stdio.h>
> #include <stdlib.h>
> #include <unistd.h>
> #include <signal.h>
> 
> void
> ouch (int sig)
> {
>   printf ("ouch %d\n", sig);
> }
> 
> int
> main (int argc, char **argv)
> {
>   struct sigaction newact = {0};
>   struct sigaction oldact;
>   int pid, x;
> 
>   if (argc == 1)
>     newact.sa_flags = SA_NOCLDSTOP;
>   newact.sa_handler = ouch;
>   printf ("%d = sigaction\n", sigaction (SIGCHLD, &newact, &oldact));
>   if ((pid = fork ()) > 0)
>     kill (pid, SIGSTOP);
>   else
>     {
>       sleep (5);
>       sleep (1);
>       puts ("exiting child\n");
>       exit (0);
>     }
>   sleep (1);
>   kill (pid, SIGCONT);
>   wait (&x);
>   puts ("exiting parent");
> }
> 
> Compiling the above program as "sigstopchld" and running it provides:
> 
>   m:\test>.\sigstopchld	 	# Calling with SA_NOCLDSTOP
>   0 = sigaction
>   exiting child
> 
>   ouch 20			# Just one SIGCHLD from child exit
>   exiting parent
> 
>   m:\test>.\sigstopchld 1	# SA_NOCLDSTOP not set
>   0 = sigaction
>   ouch 20			# first SIGCHLD
>   exiting child
> 
>   ouch 20			# second SIGCHLD
>   exiting parent
> 
> This indicates to me that SA_NOCLDSTOP is working as designed.
> --
> Christopher Faylor              spammer? -> aaaspam AT sourceware DOT org
> Cygwin Project Leader
> Red Hat, Inc.








--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/