ProgrammingThis forum is for all programming questions.
The question does not have to be directly related to Linux and any language is fair game.
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
But, if I replace sigaction() with :
The read() call is not interrupted :
I know that :
"The sigaction() function provides a more comprehensive and reliable mechanism for controlling signals; new applications should use sigaction() rather than signal()."
but IHMO it is not sufficient ...
Does anyone have any explanation of this difference ?
First, you're not using "struct sigact" right. Use bzero() to start with a clean structure. Most likely, the sigaction() example doesn't restart read() because the SA_RESTART bit in sa_flags is not set. On the other hand, signal() is usually implemented on top of sigaction() and some platforms set SA_RESTART explicitly for all signals and some make an exception of SIGALRM. I invite you to check the source code to glibc.