29 Jun
2014
29 Jun
'14
1:51 a.m.
On 29/06/14 11:45, Dave Reisner wrote:
On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 11:27:31AM +1000, Allan McRae wrote:
This will cause the code to break as soon as we handle another signal such as SIGWINCH...
Signed-off-by: Allan McRae <allan@archlinux.org> ---
Well... that didn't last long.
Seems to me the thing to do is to declare a mapping between signum and handler, rather than declaring a signal handler for everything, and then littering the logic with if/else.
I can send a patch on top of my SIGWINCH patch...
Sure. A