Re: Proposal: new signal-handling API

On Mon, 2008-07-21 at 14:23 -0700, Bryan O'Sullivan wrote:

On Sat, Jul 19, 2008 at 10:07 AM, Duncan Coutts wrote:

...

I do understand the desire for that. The downside of course is that a lower level api has to be used very carefully to avoid breaking the promises provided by the higher level api.

True.

...

There is and it's not changed by Simon's proposal:

awaitSignal :: Maybe SignalSet -> IO ()

Actually, awaitSignal isn't the same as sigwaitinfo; the latter returns the siginfo_t for the received signal.

Ah, another good reason to rewrite awaitSignal in terms of addSignalHandler. That's one of the new things with the internal implementation in ghc; it now captures the whole siginfo_t structure (and pushes it down an internal pipe) rather than just the signal number. Duncan