PR30947 - resolving ALARM
Brooks Moses
brooks.moses@codesourcery.com
Thu Mar 8 03:19:00 GMT 2007
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
More information about the Gcc-patches
mailing list