Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!aplcen!haven!mimsy!chris
From: chris@mimsy.umd.edu (Chris Torek)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.programmer
Subject: Re: pause(3) vs. sigpause(2)
Message-ID: <27338@mimsy.umd.edu>
Date: 1 Nov 90 00:07:11 GMT
References: <43321@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> <717@inews.intel.com> <722@inews.intel.com>
Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742
Lines: 17

In article <722@inews.intel.com> bhoughto@cmdnfs.intel.com
(Blair P. Houghton) writes:
>... 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).

Correct.  As the manual page states, sigpause(mask) atomically
sets the signal mask to `mask' and waits for a signal, then restores
the signal mask to whatever it was before.  pause() is effectively
equivalent to sigpause(sigblock((sigmask_t)0)).

(Use sigblock(0L) in old systems, or sigblock(0) if you do not care
about 2.10BSD.)
-- 
In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci Dept (+1 301 405 2750)
Domain:	chris@cs.umd.edu	Path:	uunet!mimsy!chris