Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!usc!julius.cs.uiuc.edu!rpi!bu.edu!orc!inews!cmdnfs!bhoughto
From: bhoughto@cmdnfs.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.programmer
Subject: Re: pause(2) vs. sigpause(3)
Message-ID: <722@inews.intel.com>
Date: 31 Oct 90 15:59:20 GMT
References: <43321@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> <717@inews.intel.com> <27817:Oct3104:58:4990@kramden.acf.nyu.edu>
Sender: news@inews.intel.com
Organization: Intel Corp, Chandler, AZ
Lines: 29

In article <27817:Oct3104:58:4990@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes:
>In article <717@inews.intel.com> bhoughto@cmdnfs.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton) writes:
>> Why obsoleted a perfectly simple system call with a
>> library function?
>
>Here it's pause(3) and sigpause(2). What machine are you using?

A Dyslexia 1990 running Ungodlix -DDEBUG9...

I.e., it was a typo.

So was 'obsoleted', for you more confused readers out there...

>> (BTW, neither of them is ANSI C; I don't know which might
>> be in POSIX).
>
>POSIX imitated the BSD signal facilities, with some helpful additions.
>It made sigpause() into sigsuspend(). The difference is that the
>argument is a ``sigset_t'' manipulated by macros.

I've looked a little harder and tried a few more (seemingly
pathological) situations, and it seems `pause()' waits for
whatever signals are currently unblocked, and `sigpause(0)'
unblocks everything (only for the duration of the wait) and
then waits.  (sigpause(n) would use n as a signal mask).

				--Blair
				  "The wonders of skience."
				  -Popeye the Sailor Man