Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: Documenting sigaltstack SS_AUTODISRM | From | Stas Sergeev <> | Date | Thu, 25 May 2017 12:17:07 +0300 |
| |
24.05.2017 14:09, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) пишет: > One could do this I suppose, but I read POSIX differently from > you and, more importantly, SS_ONSTACK breaks portability on > numerous other systems and is a no-op on Linux. So, the Linux man > page really should warn against its use in the strongest terms. So how about instead of the strongest terms towards the code's author, just explain that SS_ONSTACK is a bit-value on some/many OSes, and as such, 0 is a valid value to enable sas on them, plus all the other values would give EINVAL? No strongest terms will help w/o an explanation, because people will keep looking for something that suits as a missing SS_ENABLE.
| |