From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14003 invoked by alias); 1 Apr 2004 21:22:09 -0000 Mailing-List: contact libc-hacker-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: libc-hacker-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 13919 invoked from network); 1 Apr 2004 21:22:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO gateway.sf.frob.com) (64.81.54.130) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 1 Apr 2004 21:22:06 -0000 Received: from magilla.sf.frob.com (magilla.sf.frob.com [198.49.250.228]) by gateway.sf.frob.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CE0E357B; Thu, 1 Apr 2004 13:22:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from magilla.sf.frob.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by magilla.sf.frob.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i31LM5Oi027153; Thu, 1 Apr 2004 13:22:05 -0800 Received: (from roland@localhost) by magilla.sf.frob.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id i31LM3sg027149; Thu, 1 Apr 2004 13:22:03 -0800 Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2004 21:22:00 -0000 Message-Id: <200404012122.i31LM3sg027149@magilla.sf.frob.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Roland McGrath To: davidm@hpl.hp.com Cc: libc-hacker@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: is dl_iterate_phdr() supposed to be async-signal safe? In-Reply-To: David Mosberger's message of Wednesday, 31 March 2004 23:50:25 -0800 <16491.51649.225477.81600@napali.hpl.hp.com> X-Windows: it was hard to write; it should be hard to use. X-SW-Source: 2004-04/txt/msg00005.txt.bz2 Why would you have thought that it was? It is well-specified that no interface is async-signal-safe unless explicitly listed as such. No such claim was ever made about dl_iterate_phdr.