Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 12:17:17 +0200 (IST)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
To: Nate Eldredge <eldredge AT ap DOT net>
cc: DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com>, djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: NSIG ?
In-Reply-To: <199802030520.VAA07634@adit.ap.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.980203121652.21682d-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Precedence: bulk


On Mon, 2 Feb 1998, Nate Eldredge wrote:

> >I looked at several Unix varieties and also in application programs
> >that use this list (Emacs and GNU Make), and saw `sys_siglist' in all
> >of them.  Perhaps we can define both to be aliases for the same list?
> You are right, I think I am confused. But the aliased version wouldn't be a
> bad idea, IMHO.

DJ, do you think we should have both `sys_siglist' and `_sys_siglist'?
If so, would it be okay to define the latter be a char ** which points
to sys_siglist[0]?

> Can't we declare `const char *sys_siglist[]' and `const char
> unknown_signal[]'?

You cannot say "const char *sys_siglist[]" because it is filled with
malloc'ed strings that are modified to replace XXh with the actual
numbers and therefore cannot themselves be `const'.  `const' means you
don't change the strings, but `put_hex_digits' does just that.

Most of the above only trigger warnings, but the library build
procedure uses -Werror which makes any warnings unacceptable.