From rfg@monkeys.com  Mon Sep 25 11:43:55 2000
Return-Path: <rfg@monkeys.com>
Received: from monkeys.com (236.dsl9226.rcsis.com [63.92.26.236])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDBAE37B424
	for <FreeBSD-gnats-submit@freebsd.org>; Mon, 25 Sep 2000 11:43:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from rfg@localhost)
	by monkeys.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA10409;
	Mon, 25 Sep 2000 11:43:53 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <200009251843.LAA10409@monkeys.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 11:43:53 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" <rfg@monkeys.com>
Reply-To: rfg@monkeys.com (Ronald F. Guilmette)
To: FreeBSD-gnats-submit@freebsd.org
Subject: sigaction(2) man page is misleading
X-Send-Pr-Version: 3.2

>Number:         21542
>Category:       docs
>Synopsis:       sigaction(2) man page is misleading
>Confidential:   no
>Severity:       non-critical
>Priority:       low
>Responsible:    freebsd-doc
>State:          closed
>Quarter:        
>Keywords:       
>Date-Required:  
>Class:          doc-bug
>Submitter-Id:   current-users
>Arrival-Date:   Mon Sep 25 11:50:01 PDT 2000
>Closed-Date:    Wed Jan 9 05:12:21 PST 2002
>Last-Modified:  Wed Jan 09 05:12:52 PST 2002
>Originator:     Ronald F. Guilmette
>Release:        FreeBSD 4.1-RELEASE i386
>Organization:
Infinite Monkeys & Co.
>Environment:

>Description:

	The sigaction(2) man page is misleading with regards to the current
	(new) definition of the `struct sigaction' type.  That type is now
	defined as:

	struct  sigaction {
	        union {
	                void    (*__sa_handler) __P((int));
	                void    (*__sa_sigaction) __P((int, struct __siginfo *,
	                                               void *));
	        } __sigaction_u;                /* signal handler */
	        int     sa_flags;               /* see signal options below */
	        sigset_t sa_mask;               /* signal mask to apply */
	};

	But the definition given in the sigaction(2) man page leads one to
	believe that the following might be valid C code:

	struct sigaction thing = { handler, 0, 0 };

	but if you do that, with -Wall, gcc complains about a missing set of
	curly braces.

>How-To-Repeat:

	See above.

>Fix:

	Just say what the POSIX standard says, i.e. ``The `struct sigaction'
	type contains at least the following members...''  Just say that on
	the man page, rather than attempting to actually show (inaccurately)
	the definition of the sigaction structure.

>Release-Note:
>Audit-Trail:
State-Changed-From-To: open->analyzed 
State-Changed-By: asmodai 
State-Changed-When: Mon Oct 30 06:32:25 PST 2000 
State-Changed-Why:  
I committed a shortterm fix which at least shows the up-to-date 
source instead of the old one. 
I need to delve in my POSIX docs before I can change the wording. 

But at least it cannot be understand at this point. 


Responsible-Changed-From-To: freebsd-doc->asmodai 
Responsible-Changed-By: asmodai 
Responsible-Changed-When: Mon Oct 30 06:32:25 PST 2000 
Responsible-Changed-Why:  
I need to get some docs and look this over. 

http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=21542 
Responsible-Changed-From-To: asmodai->freebsd-doc 
Responsible-Changed-By: asmodai 
Responsible-Changed-When: Fri Nov 16 02:27:03 PST 2001 
Responsible-Changed-Why:  
Move back to the doc pool. 

http://www.FreeBSD.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=21542 

From: darklogik@pittgoth.com
To: freebsd-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.org
Cc:  
Subject: Re: docs/21542: sigaction(2) man page is misleading
Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 21:58:53 -0500

 Using FreeBSD 5.0-Current, the manpage I have seems to have been 
 updated since 4.1 and I was wondering if this change was done in 4.4 
 Release?  If so, should this be closed?
 
 
 Tom (darklogik) Rhodes
 http://www.Pittgoth.com The Dark Portal Project
 http://www.FreeBSD.org The Power To Serve

From: Tom Rhodes <darklogik@pittgoth.com>
To: FreeBSD-gnats-submit <FreeBSD-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.org>,
	bmah@FreeBSD.org
Cc:  
Subject: Re: docs/21542: sigaction(2) requesting pr closed
Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2001 15:02:48 -0800

 This pr is old, (look at the date) and I wanted to make sure that the 
 current man page was not bothered.  4.4 4.5 and 5.0-CURRENT man pages 
 have already been updated, I don't know how far back as I did not do 
 version checking.  With this in effect I highly doubt this pr needs to 
 remain open, any comments?
 
 Tom Rhodes
 www.Pittgoth.com
 www.FreeBSD.org
 
State-Changed-From-To: analyzed->closed 
State-Changed-By: nik 
State-Changed-When: Wed Jan 9 05:12:21 PST 2002 
State-Changed-Why:  
Man page updated in both -current and 4.4, so this can be closed.  Thanks 
for the report. 

http://www.FreeBSD.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=21542 
>Unformatted:
