From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <fw@deneb.enyo.de>
Received: from albireo.enyo.de (albireo.enyo.de [37.24.231.21])
 by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 57DE0386F425
 for <libc-alpha@sourceware.org>; Tue, 21 Apr 2020 14:07:16 +0000 (GMT)
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 57DE0386F425
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org;
 dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=deneb.enyo.de
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=fw@deneb.enyo.de
Received: from [172.17.203.2] (helo=deneb.enyo.de)
 by albireo.enyo.de with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256)
 id 1jQtYQ-0007MU-SG; Tue, 21 Apr 2020 14:07:14 +0000
Received: from fw by deneb.enyo.de with local (Exim 4.92)
 (envelope-from <fw@deneb.enyo.de>)
 id 1jQtYQ-0004P6-Pl; Tue, 21 Apr 2020 16:07:14 +0200
From: Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de>
To: Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org>
Cc: Adhemerval Zanella via Libc-alpha <libc-alpha@sourceware.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] signal: Only handle on NSIG signals on signal
 functions (BZ #25657)
References: <20200313194827.4467-1-adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org>
 <20200313194827.4467-4-adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org>
 <87wo69q9tg.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de>
 <7daba627-610d-fc70-9227-ed5728869f9f@linaro.org>
 <87sggxq8uq.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de>
 <6a7af7ed-9a93-c8a6-7e7b-a9f3025f290b@linaro.org>
 <87k129q7aq.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de>
 <94cfdaa9-583e-dc6b-89dd-436051a0d2bb@linaro.org>
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2020 16:07:14 +0200
In-Reply-To: <94cfdaa9-583e-dc6b-89dd-436051a0d2bb@linaro.org> (Adhemerval
 Zanella's message of "Tue, 21 Apr 2020 11:02:57 -0300")
Message-ID: <87ftcxq6el.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, KAM_DMARC_STATUS,
 SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on
 server2.sourceware.org
X-BeenThere: libc-alpha@sourceware.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Libc-alpha mailing list <libc-alpha.sourceware.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://sourceware.org/mailman/options/libc-alpha>,
 <mailto:libc-alpha-request@sourceware.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://sourceware.org/pipermail/libc-alpha/>
List-Post: <mailto:libc-alpha@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:libc-alpha-request@sourceware.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://sourceware.org/mailman/listinfo/libc-alpha>,
 <mailto:libc-alpha-request@sourceware.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2020 14:07:20 -0000

* Adhemerval Zanella:

> On 21/04/2020 10:47, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> * Adhemerval Zanella:
>> 
>>> On 21/04/2020 10:14, Florian Weimer wrote:
>>> Only handle __NSIG_WORDS on linux sigsetopts.h instead of _SIGSET_NWORDS
>>> when manipulating sigset_t masks.
>> 
>> Hmm.  __NSIG_WORDS is defined like this:
>> 
>>> +# define __NSIG_WORDS (_NSIG / (8 * sizeof (unsigned long int )))
>> 
>> This gives us two words for _NSIG == 65.  Is this correct?
>
> Two words (32-bits) for all 64-bit architectures,

sizeof (unsigned long int) is 8 on 64-bit.  65 / (8 * 8) is 1.

I assume that for _NSIG == 65, the signal numbers from 0 to 64 are all
valid and can be manipulated using sigaddset etc.  This suggests to me
that we need three 32-bit longs and two 64-bit longs.

Sorry, maybe I'm confused, I'm not feeling too well this week.