Re: Obsolete SIGRTMAX-n signal names

[John Reiser]

On 05/29/2013 01:35 AM, Harald Hoyer wrote:
> On 04/24/2013 05:26 PM, Chet Ramey wrote:
>> On 4/23/13 2:05 AM, Harald Hoyer wrote:
>>> As reported in http://savannah.gnu.org/patch/?8025 , I would like to see the
>>> SIGRTMAX-n signal names disappear.
>>>
>>> Signals should never ever be addressed with SIGRTMAX-n. Signals should 
>>> always be
>>> addressed with SIGRTMIN+n.
>>
>> I'll take a look at this, but that's a pretty strong statement to make from
>> something that appears in one Linux man page.  I can't find any shell in my
>> quick testing that behaves as you propose.  Is there any other reason to do
>> this?
>>
>> Chet
>>
>>
> 
> Any progress, comments?

Comment: In practice SIGRTMIN is a very stable value.  For each architecture
SIGRTMIN is chosen at the time of the original port, and after that SIGRTMIN
"never" will change, although in theory it could.  The value of SIGRTMAX
is less stable because it changes whenever _NSIG changes.  _NSIG has changed
from 32 to 64, and in some cases has reverted to 32 in order to save 4 bytes
[or 4*sizeof(void *)] in various places, and to make code smaller and simpler
[because (32/8)==sizeof(unsigned int)].

--