29 Jun
2014
29 Jun
'14
8:26 a.m.
On Sat, Jun 28, 2014 at 09:45:05PM -0400, 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.
At least the comment is still fixed... :P
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 think that is the right way forward as well. Cheers, Silvan