Re: PR30947 - resolving ALARM

[Brooks Moses <brooks dot moses at codesourcery dot com>]

Brooks Moses wrote:
> Daniel Franke wrote:
> > +The @code{HANDLER} may either a @code{SUBROUTINE}, a @code{INTEGER FUNCTION} or
> > +an @code{INTEGER} scalar. The scalar values may be either @code{SIG_IGN=1} to
> > +ignore the alarm generated or @code{SIG_DFL=0} to set the default action.
> > +
> >  @item @emph{Standard}:
> >  GNU extension
>
> On the other hand, this change seems independent.  Assuming that you've 
> tested to make sure that our ALARM implementation actually conforms to 
> that added paragraph in practice, I think that this should be committed 
> to trunk and 4.2.

Actually, now that I look at this more, that paragraph really belongs in 
the "Arguments" section.  Like so, replacing the current @code{HANDLER} 
entry (which it's a substantial improvement over!):

---------
@item @var{HANDLER} @tab Shall be a @code{SUBROUTINE}, a @code{INTEGER 
FUNCTION} or an @code{INTEGER} scalar. The scalar values may be either 
@code{SIG_IGN=1} to ignore the alarm generated or @code{SIG_DFL=0} to 
set the default action.
---------

Since this is largely just restating what's already there, it probably 
doesn't need to be explicitly tested (though it wouldn't hurt).

Sorry for sending so many replies!

- Brooks